Preamble

The House met at Two of the Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about Business this week?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attleé): As the House is aware, we meet specially to-day to conclude the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill. In view of the understanding reached last Friday for dealing with Part II of the Bill, we shall not now take the Report and Third Reading of the Bill on Thursday and Friday of this week. The altered Business will, therefore, be as follows:
Thursday, 12th October—Committee and, if possible, the remaining stages of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill.
Friday, 13th October—Resumed Debate on Second Reading of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill [Lords]; further progress with the Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefit) Bill, if not previously disposed of; and the Committee and remaining stages of the Liabilities (War-Time Adjustment) Bill [Lords].

Mr. Greenwood: May I take it from what was said on Friday and from the change of Business this week, that it is the intention of the Government to proceed with and complete all the stages of the Town and Country Planning Bill this Session?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir, we want to get on with that next week.

Sir Percy Harris: Are we to understand from the reply, that the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)

will be carried out, and that discussions will be organised for dealing with Part II, so that we shall have a complete Bill and not a truncated Bill, and avoid the necessity for a separate Bill dealing with finance being introduced next Session?

Mr. Attlee: That is the intention.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend to elucidate the point he has just made in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)? He said that all stages of the Bill will be completed this Session and he added something about next week. Does that mean that the Government are coming forward with their compensation proposals next week? If so, does that mean that agreement has now been reached in the War Cabinet?

Mr. Attlee: If agreement can be reached, as I hope it will be in the course of this week, we shall try to get through this Bill next week.

Mr. Thorne: Have the Government considered the advisability of fixing up a time table for the Town and Country Planning Bill?

Mr. Attlee: That is a rather different matter. We are getting on very well. May I take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member on his birthday?

Mr. A. Bevan: Why should the Government limit themselves in this way? Is it not possible to extend the life of the Session, so as to give the Government more time?

Mr. Attlee: We have not limited ourselves at all. We must consider that the Bill will have to go to another place.

Mr. Bevan: Last Friday the Prime Minister said that he could not agree to, the postponement of the Clauses but that they would have to be dropped, because it might not be possible to end the negotiations for the revised Clauses before the end of the Session. Is not that putting the Government, unnecessarily, in a strait waistcoat?

Mr. Attlee: No, I do not think so.

Mr. John Wilmot: Am I correct in understanding my right hon. Friend that the financial provisions for compensation will be part of the Bill, and not a separate Bill as was at one time thought?

Mr. Attlee: That is so, if we can get agreement.

Sir IrvingAlbery: With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that the discussion on the Second Reading of the Diplomatic Privileges Bill will be resumed on Friday, can the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the circumstances under which the discussion was broken off, give the House some indication of what course the Government intend to take when the discussion is resumed?

Mr. Attlee: The House will be informed when we come to discuss that Bill, whether any discussions have taken place and what has been the result.

Sir I. Albery: That really appears to me to be a most unsatisfactory reply to give to the House of Commons. It is quite exceptional for a Second Reading of a Bill to be taken in the House and for the Government to adjourn the discussion on it and then for a Minister to come down to the House merely to announce that the discussion will be resumed without giving any indication of what steps have been taken. That seems to be lacking in ordinary Parliamentary courtesy.

Mr. Attlee: The answer is that I can give no information at the present moment.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend has intimated that there was disagreement in the War Cabinet on this matter. Has it

occurred to him that it might be desirable, in order to fortify the War Cabinet, to put the matter simply before the House and let it decide the issue, so that the War Cabinet might be duly informed of the opinion of the House itself?

Mr. Attlee: That is a very good suggestion if it were a simple matter, but it is by no means a simple matter.

Mr. Petherick: With regard to the Diplomatic Privileges Bill, are we to understand that a new Bill is to be introduced on Friday, or will it be the old Bill? There was a certain amount of noise at the time, and I found it difficult to hear what was going on, but I was under the impression that the Bill was to be withdrawn and that it was to be re-drafted and re-presented to the House. Can we have some information on that point?

Mr. Attlee: I understand that discussions are going on to see whether it is possible to put Amendments on the Paper to make the Bill generally acceptable to the House.

Mr. Driberg: Are we to take it from what the Deputy Prime Minister has said that we are dropping the compensation Clauses from the Town and Country Planning Bill absolutely, without any guarantee of their being restored before the Report stage?

Mr. Attlee: I am afraid that the hon. Member has not recollected what was said. It was exactly the contrary.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Attlee.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 6th October.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 46.—(Additional sum to be paid to occupiers of certain land where compensation is assessed in accordance with preceding section.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

2.15 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: It is very desirable that we should not part with this Clause even for the time being—I suppose that later on someone will come along with another Clause 46—without discussion but that we should discuss the Clause, in order to make up our minds about it. Clause 45 has gone overboard; Clause 46 is, of course, related to Clause 45, and whatever form Clause 45 may take presumably there will be something in the nature of another Clause 46. We ought to consider very seriously the nature of what is in Clause 46. It is probably the most extraordinary provision ever introduced into any Bill. It says that compensation is not to be related to the person, to his circumstances and to the amount of loss incurred, but to something quite different. It is like rewriting the Ten Commandments. I remember an interesting speech made by one of the hon. Members for Sheffield when we were discussing the Betting and Lotteries Bill, in which he used the analogy of the Ten Commandments. Hon. Members who were in that Committee will remember it. In this case, Subsection (1, a) roughly boils down to this: "Thou shalt not steal, except from a man who happens to own a hereditament of a rateable value of more than £100 in the Metropolitan Police District, or the City of London, or, in the case of

a property elsewhere, £75; Thou shalt not murder anybody, whose hereditament is less than £100 in rateable value in the City of London or, in the case of a property elsewhere, £75." I miss out the Seventh Commandment because I do not quite see its adaptability but I could go on in each case showing that the Ten Commandments did not apply to offences committed against men who happen to be worth more than £100 in the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London, or more than £75 elsewhere. That is the most extraordinary proposal that has ever been put before what is supposed to be an intelligent assembly.
If I had a property anywhere that was worth 100 carrots or loaves of bread, or any other form of currency except that which is recognised by His Majesty's Government, and if it were taken from me, I should get 100 carrots or 100 loaves of bread for it, but under Clause 46 I should get 100 pieces of paper which were less in value than 100 pieces of similar paper were when I bought the property and would buy fewer carrots. I say carrots, because the Bill is intended for donkeys.

Sir Percy Harris: On a point of Order. I understood that Clause 45 had been withdrawn and was no longer open to discussion. Is the hon. Member justified in referring to Clause 45? If so, will that not re-open the whole discussion and put us back where we were at the end of our Debate last week?

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman was not quite right in saying that Clause 45 has been withdrawn. It was negatived. Clause 46 may be discussed on its merits, but that discussion should certainly have regard to the fact that Clause 45 has disappeared from the Bill. It is true, as he has reminded me, that Clause 46 still refers to Clause 45 but the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the Committee ought to have in mind the fact that Clause 45 is not now in the Bill.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: In view of the very first words in Clause 46 is it not impossible to ask the Committee to pass Clause 46 as it stands? Would it not be better for the Government to withdraw the Clause?

The Chairman: Having regard to the fact that Clause 45 is no longer in the Bill,


I was hoping that the Committee might think it right to disagree formally with the Motion when put from the Chair that Clause 46 should stand part of the Bill, but I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.

Mr. Pickthorn: In pursuance of that point of Order, I should like to ask your guidance, Major Milner, on this point. It seems to be clear that, on the discussion of this Clause, reference to the provisions of the previous Clause is not in Order; yet reference to the relationship of this Clause to the previous Clause, or to its absence, must be in Order. Consequently, I think it is in Order, on this point of Order, to raise a question about Amendments to a Clause with which the Government do not intend to proceed. I should like to ask for your guidance, in order to avoid anything like a false precedent being created, and it is on the point whether or not all Amendments pat down to a Clause become out of Order as soon as it is clear that the Government do not intend to ask the House to pass that Clause. If not, we are in some danger that it may appear to follow, from our procedure to-day and last Friday, that when it suits the Government's convenience the Chair naturally omits to call any Amendments to the whole Clause.

Mr. A. Bevan: On the same point of Order—

The Chairman: It might be better if I gave an answer to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). It would not be in Order to discuss now our proceedings on Friday. I understand that the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to the question that no Amendment had been called on Clause 46. Selection of Amendments is in the hands of the Chair, and those Amendments have been considered. Having regard to the fact that Clause 45 has been deleted, it would not have been proper to have submitted those Amendments which deal with the Bill when it included Clause 45 to the Committee, and for that reason I have not called any of them.

Mr. Bevan: May I ask the guidance of the Chair on another and cognate matter? Suppose these three Clauses are all negatived—45, 46 and 47—and that at a subsequent stage new Clauses are sought to

be inserted in the Bill and the Bill is recommitted: will the fact that we are now discussing these matters prejudice our right to discuss them when the Bill is recommitted?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is putting a rather hypothetical question. Clearly, the House of Commons has full control over the proceedings of the Committee, and no discussion can take place here which can prejudice any future discussion at other stages of the Bill.

Mr. Molson: You said a moment ago, Major Milner, that you were in the hands of the Committee with regard to Clause 46 standing part of the Bill. I should like to submit to you, as a point of Order, that you are not in the hands of the Committee on that matter and that, in view of the fact that Clause 45 has been negatived, and that Clause 46 as it stands now does not make sense, it should be—I respectfully submit to the Chair—the duty of the Chair to prevent a discussion taking place—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—upon a Bill which, in view of the omission of the previous Clause, does not make sense.

The Chairman: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member, but I must point out that it is not within my power to do what he suggests. I can select Amendments but I cannot prevent the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," coming before the Committee, and it is a matter for the Committee now to take note of the hon. Member's views and if they think fit to act accordingly.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not about time that I was permitted to resume my entirely orderly speech?

Commander King-Hall: On a point of Order. Further to the points which have already been made, and to your own expressed hope, Major Milner, that the Committee might have thought fit to deal with these Clauses as a formal matter, I would point out that the country knows very well that these Clauses are going to be withdrawn, and that it does no good to the House of Commons that it should seem to the people outside to be engaged in wasting its time.

Viscountess Astor: Hear, hear. It is a waste of time.

The Chairman: The Committee is as well able to express an opinion on that matter as I am.

Major Thorneycroft: Will you accept a Motion, Major Milner, "That the Question be now put"?

The Chairman: I do not think I should be able to accept such a Motion at this moment.

Sir H. Williams: Perhaps the Committee will now allow me to resume my perfectly orderly speech. The points of Order are rather interesting. I was amazed at the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) that the Government should withdraw the Clause. The Government have no power to Withdraw the Clause.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: On a point of Order. I agree, but if it and the Clause that follows are to be negatived, it is quite senseless to go on discussing them.

Sir H. Williams: That is not a point of Order.

Sir Irving Albery: On that point of Order. I want to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) has said. The marginal note to Clause 45 states:
Assessment of compensation in connection with acquisition of land,
and so on. Clause 46 has a marginal note which says:
Additional sum to be paid to occupiers of certain land whose compensation is assessed in accordance with preceding Section.
How can the Committee be asked to discuss and decide upon what compensation shall ultimately be paid, when that compensation is based upon a Clause already deleted from the Bill?

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I would like to remind the Committee that the Bill which we are now discussing is for the acquisition of land for town planning purposes. That necessarily means that there must be some basis upon which the land will be acquired; that is inherent in the Bill. Clause 46, which we are now considering, deals with variations from that basis in particular circumstances, and whether Clause 45 has gone or not, Clause 46 is

bound to make sense, as it deals with variations on a basis which must be in the Bill.

The Chairman: On the point of Order I would reiterate that the question of what is to be done with Clause 46 is not for the Chair, but for the Committee.

Viscountess Astor: Take a vote.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. and learned Member who raised the last point put his finger on the essential point, which is that Clause 46 has its merits or demerits, irrespective of what later may replace Clause 45. To say that this matter is in the hands of the Committee is not true. It is only in the hands of the Committee if somebody moves the Closure, and so long as my remarks are in Order I am entitled to speak. The suggestion that you, Major Milner, should suppress the discussion and take a vote is, of course, an indication of the Fascist mentality.

Captain Cobb: On a point of Order. Surely the hon. Member must be aware that Clause 45 has been negatived and that the other compensation Clauses hung upon it. Is not prolonged discussion of Clause 46 likely to cause a most unfortunate impression outside?

Sir H. Williams: I am not interested in that. Hon. Members appear to be afraid of what may be said about them outside, but that is the lowest form of attitude to take in this House of Commons. I always say what I think to be right, irrespective of what is said outside.

Viscountess Astor: I wonder.

Sir H. Williams: Hon. Members are anxious that we should get on with the discussion, but they have already wasted a quarter of an hour on points of Order, most of which were invalid. They ought to read Erskine-May before they raise points of Order. Let us look as this matter again. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes) has pointed out that Clause 46 deals with additions which are to be made to compensation, whatever they may be. Clause 45 having gone overboard, we do not know what the basis of compensation is to be, but Clause 46 deals with additions, and certain principles under which those additions are to be made, and it is important that we should discuss them in order that when the War Cabinet have settled


their row inside, and come to some conclusion, they may know precisely what our view is with regard to these additional matters. If hon. Members will take the trouble to look at Sub-section (2) they will see the words:
Where the interest is an interest in such land as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the preceding Sub-section"—
that, is the preceding Sub-section of Clause 46—
the additional sum recoverable as aforesaid shall be a sum equal to the prescribed percentage of so much of the compensation as is ascertained by reference to the value of the interest.

Sir I. Albery: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? When he has the good intention of raising the salary of somebody employed in some business with which he is connected, does he inquire what the salary is?

Sir H. Williams: I do not see what that has to do with the point, and I do not understand why hon. Members should want to cease to be Parliamentarians and think that they have to bow the knee to the Government Front Bench. Hon. Members will see that the rate of interest is something that is to be prescribed, and not as laid down by the Lands Clauses Act, as the Attorney-General has said. We have in relation to Clause 46 to consider Clause 47 where it states that the rate of interest shall, in lieu of being five per cent., be prescribed by the Treasury. Then we come back to Sub-section (2). These matters are worth considering and this impatience of hon. Members is not conducive to good legislation.
2.30 p.m.
We are going to have a rate of interest prescribed by the Treasury. We have only one example of a rate of interest being prescribed by the Treasury. True, it is prescribed by Act of Parliament, but in the War Damage Act, where you cannot get cash at once, the sum to which you are entitled has interest added to it, at the rate of 2½ per cent, per annum, though we know that in mortgage payments the interest is 4½ or 5½ per cent. There are people to-day who are building up claims for interest which are considerably larger than the interest which is being added to their value payments. We come back to exactly the same thing in this Bill, where people are not going to have a rate of interest equal to what they

are paying either to insurance companies, building societies or to holders of mortgages, and which is less than the rate of interest represented in many cases where they own the building and somebody else owns the land underneath, and people are building up a vast debt under the War Damage Act.

Major Thorneycroft: The hon. Member is going into great detail now on Clause 47 which deals with the rate of interest. May I suggest, Major Milner, that this is the first real obstructionist speech in this Debate?

The Chairman: It is not in Order for hon. Members to make suggestions of obstruction. I was listening to the hon. Member, and I gathered he was merely referring to this Clause having some relation to Clause 46. He is quite entitled to do that.

Sir H. Williams: Do let me develop the subject. I know hon. Members opposite are angry because they do not like to listen to what I am saying, but that is no reason for objecting. When you get questions such as the amount of cornpensation—and that comes into the question of the percentage of interest with regard to compensation—it is surely obviously right that we should draw attention to them, because, whatever happens inside the Cabinet with regard to these matters, we have still to make the final decision. We are not a subordinate body. We are a sovereign power. It is true that the Cabinet is a part of us, but it is not all of us; and it is not our master. Going on to examine Sub-section (4) of Clause 46, in which there is, again, a reference to the prescribed percentage, I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft) that it says:
such percentage as may be determined by the Treasury and prescribed by order made by them as appropiate for the purposes of the operation of this Section. …
Here you have a body of people, not Parliament, saying what people are to get—not us, the elected representatives of the people, but a body of people in Whitehall writing out orders prescribing what compensation people are to get. Yet hon. and right hon. Members object to the discussion of this vitally important thing which is going to give effect, not by Act of Parliament, but by delegated legislation, to compensation affecting


scores of people. I think a great deal of time could have been saved if hon. Members had read Clause 46 before they came here. Then we get Sub-section (5). Again:
The Treasury may make an order for the purposes of the last preceding Sub-section as respects such periods falling within the five years beginning with the commencement of this Act (whether before or after the making of the order) as appear to them to be appropriate. …
It is bound to be the case that when the Government come back with their new compensation Clause, there will still be something in the nature of Clause 46. Surely, it is important that we should incorporate in Clause 46 sensible provisions, and not leave them all to be made into law by officials sitting in Whitehall. It it perfectly true that these orders will, no doubt, come before Parliament later on, but where orders do not come before Parliament they cannot be amended. We can only say "Yes" or "No" to them. With positive orders the Government have to move affirmative resolutions and, alternatively, if orders are laid on the Table it still remains the fact that we can only say "We do not like the order." We cannot amend it.
It is of the utmost importance that these things should be dealt with in the Act far more precisely than is at present intended, and I hope hon. Members—who I now observe are listening because they realise this is not an obstructive speech, but one dealing with matters of substance—will devote some thought to this, and indicate to the Government how these matters ought to be dealt with. Then, a little later in the definitions in Sub-section (8), we find the words:
rateable value on the appropriate day'"—
A nice phrase. I am not surprised the Government are proposing to negative this Clause. It goes on:
shall be construed in accordance with the provisions in that behalf of Section seven of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939, with the substitution for the reference in Sub-section (2) thereof to the county court of a reference to the court in which the sum in question is sought to be recovered under Subsection (1) of this Section.
I hope the Noble Lady opposite, who is so anxious to get on with it, really understands what all that means.

Viscountess Astor: The hon. Member is a hypocrite.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask, Major Milner, whether it is in Order for the Noble Lady to describe an hon. Member as a hypocrite?

The Chairman: If that statement was made, it must be withdrawn.

Viscountess Astor: I am perfectly willing to withdraw it, if the hon. Member, who intimated that I was an idiot, will withdraw his remark also.

Sir H. Williams: No, Major Milner, that was not what I intimated. The Noble Lady is too fond of implying improper motives.

Major Milner: I gathered that the Noble Lady had withdrawn her remark.

Viscountess Astor: Yes, Major Milner, I agreed to withdraw my remark if the hon. Member withdrew his, but as I do not want to waste the time of the Committee any further, I withdraw what I said, gallantly and reverently.

Sir H. Williams: Well, of course, we all have our own interpretation of good manners and I will leave it at that.
These words about the "rateable value on the appropriate day," which I have read out, I, frankly, do not understand. It is obvious that whatever settlement is arrived at with regard to what I will call the fundamental basis of compensation, there will be a number of exceptional cases outside that fundamental basis. For that reason, it is of the utmost importance that the Committee should indicate to the Government the nature of that exceptional compensation. Naturally, the precise details will vary according to the terms of the new Clause 45, but there are features of this Clause which call for careful consideration. There is the reference to Clause 47—I must not go beyond the reference—which has a very important bearing. There is the question of the extent to which the compensation is not to be decided by the Statute Book directly, but indirectly through the authority conferred upon the Treasury, and I hope that when this Clause has been negatived, and when it is re-presented in some different form, it will be more precise and will contain a rate of interest which is more appropriate to the circumstances of


those who have interest in land, whether as owners, payers of ground rent or as lessees. The normal rate of interest in these matters is not 2½ per cent., but 4½ or 5 per cent. as everyone knows, and unless that is taken into account great injustice is going to be inflicted, and not only on a few rich people.
They are not the people concerned. There is a poor old lady in my constituency—[Interruption]—Yes, I know there are no feelings of compassion about other people's constituents—who owned eight houses. She lived in one of them. Flying bombs demolished the lot. She has lost her home, and her income, and is now dependent on the Assistance Board, because no payment is to be made at once in respect of the complete wiping out of her income. These are the people I am concerned about and in my constituency —the most bombed constituency in Britain —I have hundreds of people in this position. I am entitled to fight for them, and I am going to fight for them.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I hope the Committee will not think I am trying to truncate a useful discussion or to interfere with the rights and privileges of hon. Members, but I do make an appeal to them to get on with the Committee stage of this Bill. I am very anxious, if I can, to take advantage of the two suggestions which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) made, in our preceedings on Friday. Therefore, at this stage, I do not want to say anything at all about merits, but I hope the Committee will decide to go on, and enable us to finish this Committee stage.

Sir Edward Grigg: I am as anxious as anyone that progress should be made with this Bill and to respond to the Minister's appeal, but I wish, when he was at the Box just now, he had said that he would pay some attention to the case of injustice cited by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). There cases will remain unless the Government undertake to reconsider Clause 46 as well as Clause 45. I particularly ask for an undertaking that my right hon. Friend will pay attention to the fact that the power of regulation given to the Treasury in this case is a very unusual power, a kind of power about which the

House of Commons has been anxious. To meet the case where an individual has been unfairly treated, there should be included in the new Clause 46, the right of appeal.

Mr. Hughes: I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the terms of the Clause itself which, apparently, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has not read. He talks glibly enough about people not having read different Clauses, and he addressed the Committee on this Clause, as to the setting out of a rate of interest by the Treasury.

Sir H. Williams: No, I did not.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member talked about Clause 46 giving the Treasury power to appoint a rate of interest, but in reference thereto, he, in fact, read Sub-section (2) and blamed an hon. Member opposite for not having read it. What does Clause 46, in fact, do? It establishes a right for a person in occupation of a house or agricultural land to get a higher price than the 1939 level. I cannot refer to discussions on previous Clauses of the Bill, but I would remind the Committee that instances of this have been quoted in reference to previous Clauses when they should, in fact, have been referred to under Clause 46. There is no one more anxious than hon. Members on these Benches to see that those who have been deprived of homes should get homes, but arguments which have been produced in relation to the 1939 standard are, I suggest, completely irrelevant. Clause 46 makes a proper distinction between the persons who have lost their homes and require to get other homes, and those who have been deprived of an investment.
As far as those who invested money are concerned, they have been amply and sufficiently warned from the first days of the interim Report of the Uthwatt Committee that the purchase of property is attended with the risk that it may be acquired, at any time thereafter, at the 1939 price. [An HON. MEMBER: "Value."]I accept the word "value." I am not arguing now whether it was a ceiling or a basis. All those who have property as an investment have been told. That, I submit to the Committee, should remain, and there should be put upon it, as Clause 46 suggests, and as we on


these Benches approve, a provision to enable those who have lost their homes to get proper compensation that will enable them to get other homes. What Clause 46 does, in short, is to say that, above the 1939 figure, there shall be assessed an additional percentage, that additional percentage to be worked out in relation to the economic conditions of the moment when it is paid.
I cannot understand the scorn poured by the hon. Member for South Croydon upon the fact that we establish two first-class checks in relation to the kind of percentage that is to be put on. First we get the Treasury to work out exactly how much more, in point of cash, above the 1939 price we should give to somebody who has been deprived of a home and who wants a home. I can imagine no Government Department more competent to work it out than the Treasury. That is not the only check. That additional percentage does not become effective until a resolution has been affirmatively passed by this House. There is a proper way of assessing proper compensation for those who want homes. The compensation is properly checked and arrived at. In my submission to the Committee, the principles of Clause 46, without arguing all its exact terms or methods, ought to be retained in any method of compensation in regard to the acquisition of land.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I have been very impressed by the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes), because he has made no distinction between the various types of property which may be dealt with under this Clause. Clause 45 has gone, and rightly so, because it depended upon a dishonest principle. I am speaking at the moment on behalf of many of my constituents who have had their homes, which have a greater assessment value than £75, destroyed. If it is right to give special consideration to a man who has had his house, assessed at £75, destroyed, surely it must be right that a man who has had his house, assessed at £750, destroyed is just as much entitled to this kind of consideration with which Clause 46 deals. Therefore I hope the Committee, in fairness to the Government, will decide that Clauses 46 and 47, as well as Clause 45, should be

taken back for reconsideration, so that we can, at least, give justice to everybody, and not merely justice to one particular class.

Mr. A. Bevan: I was particularly interested in your statement, Major Milner, at the opening of the proceedings of the Committee, that on Friday we had actually negatived Clause 45, because I was under the impression, probably quite wrongly, that the Government had withdrawn Clause 45. I understood from the speech of the Prime Minister that what was happening on Friday was that Clause 45 was being withdrawn, and that that would apply to Clauses 46 and 47, in order to give the Government an opportunity of readjusting their differences.

The Chairman: In reply to the hon. Member it is not, of course, possible to withdraw a Clause which has once been brought before the Committee. It has to be accepted or negatived.

Mr. Bevan: Thank you, Major Milner. That is precisely the point to which I shall address my remarks, because some very interesting conclusions follow from a technical difference between the withdrawal and the negativing of a Clause. We have now, I understand, negatived Clause 45, and for reasons which we all understand, hon. Members opposite are not anxious to re-discuss it to-day. All the general arguments advanced by the Prime Minister are equally appropriate to Clauses 46 and 47. If I may say so, they would be as much out of Order to-day, as they were on Friday, and as much in Order to-day as they were on Friday. We are now asked by the Government to negative Clause 46. We shall be asked to negative Clause 47. If these three Clauses are taken out of the Bill, we want to understand what is to follow. The Committee is not clear about what is to follow. We heard from the Deputy Prime Minister before the resumption of the Committee stage to-day a few ambiguous phrases about what was going to happen. What is the intention of the Government? Is it a firm intention that before the end of the Session these compensation Clauses of the Bill shall be re-inserted, and the Committee given another opportunity of considering them, as indeed they must; or is it intended that after the Clauses have been dropped, we shall proceed with the other stages


and other parts of the Bill, and leave it to another Bill to deal with compensation.
Let us be clear which of these two procedures we are to follow? I understand, that is conditional upon agreement within the Cabinet—agreement between whom? Obviously, not between the two sides of the Government because the Labour side has unfortunately already surrendered the main position. I will try to show, if I may, how they have done so. If these three Clauses are negatived and the Bill is recommitted, as indeed it must be, I understand that in such Circumstances the same Clauses cannot be put back in the Bill. They will have to be different Clauses. The Chairman shakes his head. I may be wrong, but we should have guidance on this matter, because I understand that if a Bill is recommitted, the House is then allowed to discuss, not all the Bill over again, but only those parts of the Bill concerning which recommittal has in fact taken place.

The Chairman: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but it would be quite possible for the House, if it so wished, to put back the same Clauses.

Mr. Bevan: Can we in fact have a second discussion on these matters? Can we have a second discussion on the same matter in the same Bill, in the same Committee in the same Session?

The Chairman: That would be so, on recommittal.

Mr. Bevan: I am sorry to persist, but with all due respect I think you will find, Major Milner, there is some difficulty on this matter. I think we should be quite clear what we are doing. It will be very nice if the leaders of the Government come here later and say, "We cannot do this in the course of the same Bill—there are technical difficulties. Although we intended to do it, unfortunately we cannot do it. We shall have to bring in a new Bill, and compensation will have to be discussed separately from town planning and redevelopment." That is exactly what certain sinister interests on the other side of the Committee want. What happened last Friday was that the Prime Minister—not, I understand, under pressure—came out as an enthusiastic volunteer in defence of land racketeering. [An

HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."]It is no use saying "Nonsense." He made a lie of his broadcast of last March.

Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: Are we entitled to discuss on this Clause the proceedings in the Committee last Friday?

The Chairman: I did not understand the hon. Member to be discussing last Friday's proceedings directly. He referred to them in his argument.

Mr. Bevan: The only reason we are being asked to negative Clause 46 now, is not because of the contents of Clause 46, but because we negatived Clause 45. That is why the Government are making no defence. The reason why we negatived Clause 45, was because there was a quarrel inside the Conservative Party—

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Because the Clause was dishonest.

Mr. Bevan: —now bringing pressure to bear on the Prime Minister to rat on his broadcast of last March. Last March the Prime Minister made a pledge over the radio. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) has pointed out, it was only one of a series of pledges made since 1939. What were these pledges? They were that improvements in value, that additions to land values and property values during the war, should not be exploited by speculators in order to get larger sums of compensation from the State. Was not that so?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: rose—

Mr. Bevan: I will not give way. I wish to finish my argument. Those of us who have been reading the history of this matter—

Dr. Russell Thomas: No one interrupts other people so much as the hon. Member.

Mr. Bevan: No one gives way so much.

Mr. Bartle Bull: No one talks so much either.

Mr. Bevan: The mantle of private secretary lies very heavily on the shoulders of the hon. Member.

Mr. Bull: I would do my best to give the hon. Member a job if I could.

Mr. Bevan: Since 1941, when the Uthwatt Committee presented its interim Report, as they were asked to do by the Government, in those days when the nation was having to put up with the blitz, and it was therefore necessary to sustain morale by telling Tory lies—in those days the Government said to the Uthwatt Committee, "So urgent is this matter of the appreciation of land values that we ask you to give us your guidance by way of an interim Report." We had that Report, and that advice was to proceed at not higher than 1939 values.

3.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Uthwatt Committee said that there should be an adjustment in case of a fall in the appreciation of money?

Mr. Bevan: There were several conditions in the Uthwatt Report, but the main principle was accepted on behalf of the Government by the Lord Privy Seal in another place, and was continually repeated. But there was on this side of the House grave suspicion of the intentions of the Tory Party; so suspicious had we become, that last March the Prime Minister made a broadcast on behalf of the Government—

Sir H. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer collects Death Duties, not on the basis of 1939 values, but on the value at the time of death?

Mr. Bevan: That has nothing to do with the stand taken by the Government. Unfortunately, I cannot argue the merits of this matter. All I can do is to argue the reasons why we should or should not negative Clause 46. Last March, as I was saying, the Prime Minister took it upon himself to make a broadcast. I was looking at the terms of that broadcast last night. What did he say? He said that land was to be treated as special property, that it was to be treated differently from other forms of property and that compensation for land needed for town planning would be paid on 1939 values.
That is what everybody understood, and the Prime Minister would not have made his broadcast had it not been for that purpose. Now we are considering a Bill for town planning, and the same Prime Minister said on Friday that

national unity was being impaired. By what? Anything from this side? All we were doing was insisting that the Government should honour the promise which had been made. There was no disturbance of national unity from this side — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—although the Prime Minister did his best, like the good, national leader he is, to create as much mischief as he could by references to members of the Cabinet. That was the contribution made by the Prime Minister to national unity—to violate the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility by awarding prizes within the Cabinet, in public. But there was no disunity on this side, or any danger of the Government being broken up by any difference. We were standing for what we had been standing for all the time, and for what the Government, and the Tory Party in particular, had been standing for up to now. Now we are asked to withdraw these Clauses, in order that the Conservative Party may separate the compensation Clauses from this Bill. Once a Bill dealing with the rebuilding of our blitzed cities has gone through the House of Commons, the impression can be given that immediate attention can be given to their claims—

Sir Patrick Hannon: I would ask the hon. Member to be careful. I am concerned for the safety of the head of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha).

Mr. Bevan: Hon. Members on this side have had experience of what hon. Members on the other side are capable of doing, when they are defending their bank balances. They reduce Parliament to a farce, and do everything they possibly can to save their swag and their friends' swag. They are asking the Committee to postpone the compensation Clauses now in order to give leisure and opportunity to the land racketeers to get their hands into the public purse—

Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Bevan: No.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: On a point of Order. Is it correct, Major Milner, for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) to impute motives to every hon. Member on this side?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not entitled to impute motives to an individual Member.

Mr. Bevan: I am not exempting any individual Member from the charge. The position ought to be made clear to the country, and it is not being made clear now. The Prime Minister enjoys, and in some respects deservedly enjoys, high prestige in the country as a whole, and it is, therefore, singularly unfortunate that that reputation should have been tarnished for such squalid ends, as was done last Friday. It is indeed the harbinger of what we may expect. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that that reputation, built up in most difficult years and sanctified to a large extent by sufferers among our population, should be capitalised and exploited on behalf of the most selfish interests in Great Britain.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: It would be interesting to follow the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in the first of his new series of election speeches, but I ask the Committee seriously to consider what we are doing. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that he made two mistakes. The first was when he said that we did not like hearing him. That is wrong. The Committee always looks forward to hearing him. My hon. Friend's second mistake was in thinking Members rose to points of Order merely because they had not read the Bill. I want to say that all the arguments we have heard to-day, apart from some of those just uttered, are bound to come up again when the new compensation Clauses come forward. I suggest, therefore, that we are wasting time in view of the fact that we shall have to have the discussion all over again.

Sir H. Williams: But we have a new procedure now. Before we have any legislation we have a White Paper stage. Surely this is a White Paper stage.

Sir P. Harris: With a good deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Warlaw-Milne) has said I agree—

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. Would it not be as well if Members who hate other Members like poison, simply referred to

them as the "hon. Gentleman" or the "right hon. Gentleman"?

Sir P. Harris: I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, and whether I am to call him my Friend or refer to him only as "the hon. Gentleman," it is quite clear that last Friday we rejected Clause 45. We did it on the definite understanding that we were to have substitute Clauses, differently framed and worded. I am prepared to negative Clause 46, which I think is unfortunate and cumbersome, in the hope of getting a better one, but I do so on the definite understanding that before the end of the Session the new Clauses will be introduced. I agree with much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) about the principle of the values. I think it would be a pity to depart from them. I think we ought to give the Government another chance of showing that they can do better.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. DREWE and Commander BRABNER were appointed Tellers for the "Ayes," but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the "Noes," the Chairman declared that the "Ayes" had it.

Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order. Why are we not proceeding with the Division, Major Milner?
The Chairman: Because the Tellers for the "Noes" were not put in within the two minutes allowed by the Standing Rules.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," accordingly put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 47.—(Power to prescribe rate of interest payable where entry made before payment of compensation.)

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Clauses 48 to 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

3.15 p.m.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to authorise purchase by local planning authority for area where land is in lieu of by another authority.)

(1) Any authorisation of the compulsory purchase of land outside the area of a local planning authority which under the preceding provisions of this Act could be given to that authority may, in lieu of being given to that authority be given, in the like manner and subject to the like conditions, to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated.
(2) Without prejudice to any other power in that behalf, a local planning authority may, with the consent of the Minister, acquire by agreement any land which they could be authorised under this Section to purchase compulsorily.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It gives power to authorise purchase by a local planning authority in an area where land is held by another authority. The short point here is that, while the Bill gives wide powers to local authorities to purchase land outside their own area, often the case may arise where it is more convenient for the authority of the area to which the people are going, to be the local authority holding the land, and this gives them that power.

Earl Winterton: I want to put a point to my right hon. Friend. I suppose this is not in conflict with, and in no way makes an inroad into, Private Bill legislation? Could the Minister given an assurance?

Mr. Morrison: I can give my Noble Friend that assurance.

Mr. Douglas: I should be very much obliged if the Minister will explain a little more clearly what the purpose of this Clause is. On the face of it, it seems to mean this. Local Authority A wants to purchase a piece of land and the Minister says "No, you cannot purchase it, but Local Authority B shall purchase it." That does not seem to provide for the needs of local authorities, but to put a fifth wheel upon the coach. Here is a local authority dealing with the replanning of its area, and it is given power to purchase land outside that area. Then, the Minister is proposing to take powers himself to prevent the local authority from exercising the power he

has already given to it, and transferring that power to some other local authority, which has nothing to do with the planning scheme. Surely, the Minister can make the purpose of this Clause clear, if it has a good purpose?

Mr. Morrison: There is no sinister intention behind this proposal. As power is given to planning authorities to purchase land, without reference to whether it is inside their area or not, it may often be convenient that the authority holding the land in the overspill area, should not always be the authority exporting the population, but the authority in whose area the land is situated. That is the sole purpose of this Clause, and I think it will be a good and useful thing in many cases.

Mr. Douglas: Would the Minister explain this further point? My right hon. Friend says it may be desirable for the authority in the external area to hold the land. Does that mean that that authority is going to build the necessary houses and that the planning authority will be relieved of that obligation? If so, how is that result to be brought about? Or does it mean that the one authority is going to own the land, and the other authority is going to build the houses upon the land, in the area of a different authority? If so, it is a very curious position, and, so far as I know, not in line with any legislation we have ever had.

Mr. Morrison: The intention is, that in the case of two authorities applying for land, the circumstances of each case would be taken into account, and, if they agreed that the course provided in this Bill should be followed, the order would then make that possible.

Mr. John Wilmot: There may be a number of areas where this Clause will be applicable. Let us assume that Authority A desires to acquire land in the area of Authority B. Both Authority A and Authority B have development schemes. What we want to be quite clear about is that, where Authority A is empowered in this Clause to develop an area of land in the region of Authority B, it will be ensured that the development will be in accordance with the rest of the development in the area of Authority B. We do not want an enclave of


disharmonious development inside the area of a planning authority.

Mr. Morrison: The desirable result which my hon. Friend asks about would be achieved by the giving consent in the appropriate case. Far from creating disharmony, this may be a very potent means for creating harmony, resolving suspicion and avoiding dividing and overlapping authority.

Mr. Wilmot: I take it that my right hon. Friend's answer really is that the Minister would take these considerations into account before exercising the powers in this Clause?

Mr. Morrison: Exactly, and I anticipate that there will be very few cases where this power shall not be exercised by the Minister, at the request of both authorities concerned.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Reference has been made to Authority A buying land in an area adjacent to its borough. Personally, I do not like the Clause. I can see the possibility of a great deal of friction. There are certain boroughs which are fully developed. Does the Clause admit of any borough in London acquiring land, say 20, 30 or 40 miles away, and, if that is so, what is the inducement for a London borough to buy land in such a position that they would be erecting property for the benefit of another area? I feel that this Clause needs to be more clearly defined on the point of exactly how far local authorities may go, because it does not say that the land shall be acquired by agreement. It might be that a local authority was buying land in an adjacent area, and meant it for the purposes of ultimately extending its area. What is the safeguard against that possibility?

Captain Cobb: I should like to ask the Minister for some assurance that these powers granted to a planning authority would be used sparingly, because I can visualise possibilities in the unlimited granting of these powers. Planning authorities may produce a great deal of undesirable urbanisation of the open country, and the effect will, inevitably, be to remove the town population further and further away from the country, in which they are accustomed to take their leisure. I understand that a majority of authorities very much dislike the idea of

"building up," but a great many people in London have become accustomed to living in blocks of fiats, without, so far as one is aware, any unfortunate effect upon their health. Anybody who has seen these blocks of flats would surely agree that the open spaces made available to the people there have been a very great advantage. I want to feel sure that the best possible use is made by the local authority of the land within their area, and I should like an assurance that this is not going to persuade local authorities to make themselves responsible for a great deal of undesirable development in the countryside.

Mr. McEntee: A planning authority may purchase land away from its own area. I wonder what is going to happen in the case of a development area in London, and I have in mind, and particularly, what is called the Green Belt. I am wondering if, in the exercise of the powers that no doubt will be given to them, these authoriites could go from London beyond the Green Belt for the purpose of purchasing land to house their own people. If they can, I should, personally, be very glad, because, frankly, I cannot see the possibility of the people in many of the congested London districts finding any possible housing accommodation, without creating other congestion. The authorities have every desire to avoid that congestion, and are determined to move their population out, if they can, into the Green Belt area, but, unless they have the power to go beyond that Green Belt area, obviously, they will be in very great difficulty. I was glad the point was raised by the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis), and I would like to know, as a matter of information, whether, in fact, we, who live in the London area, and have to consider the housing of our very congested population, knowing that we cannot help this congestion unless we can find outside land, may visualise the probability of going beyond the Green Belt.

Mr. Morrison: I would like to make it quite clear that what is proposed in this Clause does not confer any additional powers of purchase upon a local authority. We have granted the powers already, under Clause 2, Clause 9 which deals with obsolete areas and Clause 10 which gives powers to purchase land for


general planning purposes. All that this new Clause does is that, the powers having been settled, it gives an option as to which planning authority should exercise them. In reply to the case put by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. McEntee), it certainly is possible for a planning authority to purchase land on the far side of the Green Belt, and I think the Committee would agree that such power is necessary if we are not to have the congestion repeating itself. In reply to the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis), this confers no new powers of public purchase. It only gives discretion as to which authority shall exercise them. On the matter of borough boundaries, my hon. Friend will be aware that there is a new Clause on the Order Paper, and I will deal with the point when we come to it. The hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) brought before us certain general planning considerations, and I will bear in mind what he said, but, of course, they arise on the consideration of what is good planning and what is not. I hope I have explained the matter.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: May I ask a question? Shortly, another Clause is to be moved by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). The Clause which he is to move is to give planning authorities the power to initiate a procedure under which planning authorities may extend their areas. This Clause deals with the point of a housing estate being bought outside the boundary, and I want to understand the effect of it on the other Clause which is to be moved. Does it mean, for instance, that, if Sunderland or Plymouth wishes to extend its boundaries, and there is no right procedure to that end, my right hon. Friend, under this Clause, can authorise a neighbouring authority to acquire a housing estate which normally would be administered by Sunderland or Plymouth? If so, that is a very derogatory provision.

Mr. Douglas: May I ask the Minister to make the case a little clearer? He said that the Clause confers no additional power of purchase, but this is how I understand it. Authority A, a war-damaged area, requires to build outside its own boundary in the area of Authority B, in order to provide for replacements.

This Clause, apparently, confers upon Authority B the power to buy land from Authority A. That is an entirely new power which Authority B would not have had, except for this new Clause. I want to know the meaning of the words, "in the like manner and subject to the like conditions." Does that mean that Authority B will have to provide the accommodation which is necessary for the replacement upon the land which is so acquired; that it will take over the liability of Authority A to provide the houses, make the drains and do the other things which are required? If it does not mean that, what is the respective position of the two local authorities?

Lieut.-Commander Joynson - Hicks: I have had great difficulty in understanding the object of the Clause. The marginal note is completely incomprehensible. I should like to ask the Minister, further arising out of the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), if there is any connection between this Clause, apart from its necessity, and the subsequent Clause which is to be moved?

Mr. Wilmot: May I ask the Minister if, in answer to the Debate, he will deal with a concrete case? The London County Council have hitherto purchased considerable areas of land outside the County of London for the purpose of housing the people who could not be housed in the county. Hitherto, the County Council has bought the land and built the estates and owned and managed them. Would there be any alteration under these powers? Would the authority pass to anyone else in that particular regard?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) seems to be the problem which has been expressed in various ways by hon. Members. It may be that as we go on with the task of reconstructing, say, the London region, a very good purpose might be served, if some of the population, now being displaced, were made part of a smaller town and administered by it; and it might be convenient, both for London and for the town, that the land, even though London were going there, should be owned by the town itself. There is nothing beyond that in this Clause. It would only be desired, as I say, where it was convenient to everybody. I do not think myself that the


Committee would like the Bill to pass from it with this sort of situation imposed upon authorities—that is to say, that if it is found desirable to take over land near a growing community for the purpose of accommodating some of London's surplus people, that London would necessarily want to own the land, perhaps in or near the borough boundaries of, say, Colchester, or some town of that sort. It might be for everybody's convenience that the authority providing the services and collecting the rateable value should own the land and that a clear job should be made of the whole proceeding. I hope that that will answer the point of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Douglas: Who builds the houses?

Mr. Morrison: The housing authority.

Mr. Douglas: Which one?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: We ought to be clear about the meaning of the Clause. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) pointed out, the marginal note is completely incomprehensible, when it says:
Power to authorise purchase by local planning authority for area where land is in lieu of by another authority.
Particularly in view of that marginal note, we ought to understand where we are. I only intervened because my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has a most important Amendment coming on, and I do not want this Clause, if the Committee carries it, to be used an an answer to that Amendment. Let us be clear what we are doing. Sunderland, for example, has a planning scheme which involves the over-spilling of its population into a neighbouring area. It would like a procedure whereby it could extend its boundary, but, owing to the obstinacy of my right hon. Friend, that position is refused, so it does the next best thing—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): We must not go into anything that has to do with boundaries here, otherwise we shall be cutting out the discussion on a later proposed new Clause.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am saying that it does the next best thing, and it purchases land outside its boundaries, which is what this Clause authorises.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It only authorises in certain cases.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It says that any authority can be authorised to purchase land. It does the next best thing and buys land outside its authority and establishes a housing estate there. My right hon. Friend says "I will give permission," but the other authority over the boundary says that the administration of the estate may be in the hands of a less enlightened authority. I want to know the purpose of this Clause. If Sunderland is forward enough to create a housing estate outside its own area, why should my right hon. Friend refuse his permission and then give permission to another authority to house the previous inhabitants of Sunderland? If the drafting of the Clause is wrong—and certainly the marginal note is wrong—perhaps my right hon. Friend will give me an assurance on that point, because I do not want the further new Clause which is to be moved to be rejected on the ground that my right hon. Friend has taken some power here.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman addressed his mind to the specific point put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas). We all know that this Clause gives power for Authority B to purchase land in their area to house people from area A and all my hon. Friend asks is: Who is going to do the development? It is true that Authority B will own the land but is Authority A to develop the land, and, therefore, on what sort of tenure is Authority A to build houses on the land of Authority B? Is Authority B to give a lease to Authority A so that it can develop the houses? That is precisely the point my hon. Friend has put and the right hon. Gentleman has so far not answered it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): I do not know if I can make the matter any clearer but the position is as follows. I apologise for the punctuation of the marginal note and I agree that it has a high measure of incomprehensibility but the marginal note is not part of the Bill. To come to the New Clause, the first Sub-section gives no powers of acquisition whatsoever. They are already given by Clauses 2, 9 and 10 of the Bill, but where it is desirable that a particular area shall be acquired say for over-spill—that is a horrible expression


and I can assure the Committee I did not invent it—under these Clauses the question is which is the authority that shall do the purchasing? Very often that is conveniently done by the exporting authority. There may be a case, however, where the land to be acquired is on the edge of an existing community which it is desirable to expand, and in that case it is clear that the more convenient authority may be the authority of that area. It is to meet that case that this Clause is necessary. My hon. Friend then mentioned development. The position here is that development follows ownership and, therefore, if the other authority—what I may call the importing authority—does the acquisition, it would also do the development. I hope that I have made the position clear as it will be under this Clause. The second Subsection is merely to enable the local planning authority to acquire by consent what it can acquire compulsorily. I do not know if that has answered the question in the minds of hon. Members but I hope that they will give us the New Clause.

Mr. Douglas: That just leaves one question that I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. How do we secure that the overcrowded population of area A get the houses which are built by Authority B and not some other people who do not need the accommodation so urgently?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: There is one point which I think has been overlooked. Assume that locality A buys land and builds houses in locality B. The borrowing powers of local authorities are based
their rateable value. Will the rateable value of this property that Authority A has built in district B, be brought into the rateable value of area A, for the purposes of borrowing powers?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is too wide.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Duty of local planning authority to furnish information to the Minister.)

(1) It shall be the duty of a local planning authority on a request in that behalf being

made to them by the Minister, to furnish to him, in such manner as he may direct, such particulars of their proposals for the time being for the planning of their area as he may consider requisite for enabling him to consider properly the expediency of his confirming or making a compulsory purchase order under this Part of this Act, of his giving his consent to or requiring a disposal or appropriation of land by the authority thereunder, of his giving his consent to the carrying out by them thereunder of building operations or any other authorisation or approval for the purposes of this Part of this Act, or the manner in which any other jurisdiction conferred on the Minister by this Part of this Act ought to be exercised by him.
(2) The power of the Minister under Subsection (2) of Section six of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943 (which enables the Minister to give directions requiring interim development authorities to furnish him with such information with respect to interim development applications received by them as he considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of enabling him to cause an application to be referred to him under Sub-section (1) of that section) shall include power to require the furnishing of such information with respect to interim development applications (including information as to the manner in which any such application has been dealt with) as he may consider requisite for the the purpose of enabling him to consider properly the expediency of his exercising any of his functions under that Act.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The whole basis of this Bill is that the local planning authority should be preparing good plans, even if it has not completed them, and should apply to the Minister for consents and so forth on the basis of the plans which it is making. The purpose of Sub-section (1) of the proposed new Clause is to make it clear on the face of the Statute that it is the duty of the planning authority to give to the Minister particulars of the plans which it has in mind so far as they have been formed. That enables the Minister to know what the plans of the local authority are and to give advice and to take the many Ministerial decisions which he has to take in the light of a full knowledge of the local authority's plan. Needless to say, it is the custom of good local authorities to give this information to the Minister, but this Sub-section makes it clear on the face of the Statute that it is their duty to do so.
Sub-section (2) supplements some powers which we took in the Statute of last year.


In that Statute the Minister has power to call upon the planning authority for information in regard to interim development applications received by them, but at the moment he has no power to call for information on how such applications have been dealt with in the past. It will be clear to hon. Members that a local authority may have made wrong decisions on interim development applications in the past, which have not yet been acted on, or decisions which, though they may have seemed right at the time, are no longer right in the light of subsequent events. In any event it is desirable that the Minister should have the right to seek information on this matter, and Subsection (2) remedies that slight omission from the Statute passed last year.

Mr. Guy: Whilst I recognise that it is the duty of the local planning authority to furnish all the information desired, can we have an assurance that when that information has been submitted there will be no undue delay in giving consideration to the proposals submitted, and that we shall not have to wait months and months, as has been the case in the past, for a decision to be taken?

Mr. McEntee: While I have no objection to a local authority being asked for or giving all the necessary information experience teaches me that it may be quite a big job to get together the information, involving a considerable amount of labour, even necessitating the engagement of new staff. If that should be so, what will be the position of the local authority in regard to meeting any additional cost to which it may be put?

Mr. H. Strauss: I do not think the local authority can possibly be put to any new expense. There may not even always be need for correspondence, because very often this information can be given to visiting officials of the Ministry, although sometimes, no doubt, there will be correspondence. The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Guy) raised the question whether this new requirement might lead to delay. My own view, based on some experience of administration, makes me think exactly the opposite. There will be less delay if the expert advisers of my Department have information of what is in the mind of the local authority at the earliest possible time. Sometimes they

will be able to give helpful advice to them before they have taken some step which would waste their time because it would prove to be unacceptable.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Works below highwater mark.)

Nothing in this Act shall authorise the execution of any works, whether of construction, demolition or alteration on, over or under tidal lands below highwater mark of ordinary spring tides, except with the consent of any persons whose consent would have been required if this Act had not been passed, and except in accordance with such plans and sections and subject to such restrictions and conditions as, previous to such works being commenced, have been approved by the Minister of War Transport.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a common form provision which appears in many Statutes, and it is designed to save the particular rights of the Minister of War Transport over these particular lands.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is the Minister quite satisfied about the use of the words, "Minister of War Transport"? I suppose he has not forgotten that that is a war-time Ministry. Suppose it comes to an end?

Mr. Morrison: If we decide to alter the title of that Ministry and to set up some other authority to look after this particular problem, then the legislation by which it is done would make the necessary references and changes.

Mr. Bevan: But is the Minister not aware that sometimes Ministries disappear overnight or are set up overnight without any Bills? Who would be the appropriate authority at that time?

Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. Member will find that any new authority created to look after these plans would assume and inherit all the rights and liabilities of its predecessor.

Commander Agnew: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the position of the Admiralty is safeguarded, and also the position of Trinity House?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think there is any danger that the position of the Admiralty and of Trinity House has not been adequately safeguarded. I cannot answer the point offhand, but I will look into it and see whether it is covered, though I rather think it is.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to licensed premises purchased under this Part.)

Where land purchased under this Part of this Act comprises premises in respect of which an old on-licence is in force, the following provisions shall have effect—

(a) the purchasing authority. before purchasing the premises, may undertake that in the event of the renewal of the licence being refused, they will pay to the compensation authority towards the compensation payable on such refusal under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, such contribution as may be specified in the undertaking, and any sum payable by the purchasing authority in pursuance of such undertaking shall be treated as part of their expenses in purchasing the land;
(b) if, after purchasing or contracting to purchase the premises, the purchasing authority intimate to the licensing justices that they are willing to surrender the licence, the licensing justices may refer the matter to the compensation authority and that authority, on being satisfied that the licence, if not surrendered, might properly have been dealt with as a redundant licence, shall contribute out of the compensation fund towards the compensation paid by the purchasing authority in respect of the purchase of the premises a sum not exceeding the compensation which would have been payable under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, on the refusal of the renewal of the licence.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with justices' licences and enables the expenses arising on the redisposition of these licences to be equitably shared by arrangement. The provision is a common form one to this extent, that it is in the Housing Act of 1936, in which Section 47 reproduces these provisions; so the Clause introduces nothing new. The position is that if the compensation authority decide to refuse renewal of a licence compensation must be paid to the interested party, and there are rules for assessing that compensation. If the compensation authority and the interested

parties cannot agree, the matter goes to the Board of Inland Revenue to be determined, and afterwards there can be an appeal to the High Court if necessary. This Clause provides for the purchasing authority and the compensation authority sharing between them in suitable cases the cost of acquiring these licensed premises. Paragraph (a) of the new Clause provides that a purchasing authority may undertake before purchasing licensed premises that if the renewal of the licence is refused they will make to the compensation fund such contribution as has been specified in the undertaking. That enables them to fix up in advance a just apportionment of the expenses. Paragraph (b) provides for the case in which the purchasing authority has already purchased or contracted to purchase the premises. In that event they may intimate to the licensing justices that they are willing to surrender the licence. The justices may refer the licence to the compensation authority, and if they are satisfied that the licence is surrendered there might be a contribution towards the expense from both parties. In other words, if the purchasing authority are prepared, in effect, to do the work of the compensation authority by acquiring the premises and offering to give up the licence, it is reasonable that some part of the cost of acquisition should be met by a contribution from the compensation fund.

Sir Richard Wells: I regret very much that this Clause should be introduced in this planning Bill, although I admit that a similar Clause was in the Housing Acts of 1930 and 1936. The Clause appears to be not only very technical but very involved. Local authorities are entitled to get part of the purchase price out of the compensation fund, but though the Clause gives them the right to repay what they have taken out there is no obligation to repay. I should have thought that that procedure was very unusual in any legislation. It will probably give rise to a good deal of litigation. The Minister said there was nothing new in this Clause, but it seems to me there is something new. The compensation fund was built up for the purpose of doing away with redundant licences. Owing to the war a great many licensed premises have been destroyed by enemy action and the position has changed, and I think it is unfortunate that this Clause


should be brought forward at this time. The Home Secretary recently set up the Morris Committee to report upon war damage to licensed premises and their reconstruction, and in paragraph 101 of their Report they deal particularly with this question of bombed houses and compensation. I would like to read that paragraph, because it explains the whole position and gives the view expressed by what I regard as a very important Committee. It says:
The question arises whether arrangements of this kind should be supplemented by the use of the machinery provided in the Licensing Act for the extinguishment of licences with compensation. After full consideration of the matter we have come to the conclusion that this would not be appropriate and that this machinery should be suspended in designated and associated areas. Although the word 'redundancy' does not occur in the Licensing Acts it is generally accepted that the main purpose of the Licensing Act compensation machinery is to deal with licences which are considered to be 'redundant,' namely, surplus to the needs of the locality. The principles on which licensing justices and compensation authorities assess redundancy which are inevitably based on the practice of normal times of gradual developments and change, have little relevance in areas of serious war damage. In this connection it may be noted that the activities of the licensing justices and the compensation authorities have been greatly diminished during the war; thus the number of refusals of renewals by the compensation authorities throughout the country, have fallen from 321 to 273 respectively in 1938 to 59 and 48 respectively in 1942, and in only one of the war damaged areas for which witnesses were seen had any renewals been refused with compensation during the years 1941 and 1942. Moreover we understand that some 75 out of the 152 compensation authorities have made no levy at all in 1943 and many others have made levies far below the maximum scale. It seems reasonable to infer from this that most authorities feel that they cannot exercise their functions during abnormal periods. These considerations apply with even greater force to the situation consequent on the replanning of areas of serious war damage which will involve so many changes and readjustments that it will be impossible to assess the situation on the basis of pre-war redundancy.
Now this Clause is a direct contradiction of the findings of that Committee, and I thought the Minister would very likely leave this matter over until the new clauses on compensation came forward, when he might reconsider the whole point. It is unfortunate as, owing to war conditions, so many houses may be abolished.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: The Minister in moving the Second Reading of this Clause referred to the fact that compensation would be

paid to interested parties. He did not specify the interested parties. Is he bearing in mind only the licence-holders or the people on the other side of the counter, who are very interested indeed? I know perfectly well that the hon. Member for Bedford (Sir R. Wells) was concerned with the compensation to be paid to licence-holders, but I would point out that as a result either of a shortage of alcohol, or of the blitz, the licence-holders do not mind whether they are open or not, whereas the ordinary members of the public have been up in arms about it, summer after summer. I hope the Minister will see some way by which the interested parties—that was the phrase he used but it is not in the Clause—will in some way, either in the form of a subsidy or by a reduction in the price of alcohol itself, be satisfied.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: Surely this compensation fund consists of moneys provided by the owners of licensed houses, principally the brewers, for another purpose quite distinct from that which is in contemplation in this Bill. It was in order that when redundancy occurred, and the licensing magistrate decided that certain houses should be abolished, there should be an equitable compensation from the fund provided for that purpose by the owners of all the licensed houses. I cannot see that there is any element of justice in taking sums from this fund in order to pay for the ruins of houses which have been damaged by enemy action, and to which I understand this new Clause refers. I hope the Minister will give some further justification for this looting from the fund other that that which he has given up to now.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) meant when he proposed that the Minister should provide compensation for the persons who need the supplies on the other side of the counter. I should have thought that, if it were thought desirable that compensation should be provided either for my hon. Friend or anyone else on the other side of the counter, the Minister of Town and Country Planning was not the right person to do it. This Clause seems to me to be much simpler and more reasonable than my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Sir R. Wells) regarded it. As I understand it, this


Clause is not restricted to licensed premises which have been destroyed by enemy action. It may extend to licensed premises which have not been destroyed by enemy action but which the planning authority, in the course of the acquisition of an area of extensive war damage, may deem it desirable to acquire. Of course, when they acquire licensed premises which are a going concern, they will have to pay compensation for them, and one of the questions would be, how much should they pay for the loss of the licence? Now it may be more convenient, if the licence is not renewed, for the owner of the licence to apply for compensation to the compensation authority, and the planning authority, as I understand it, may regard that as a preferable course. If they do that, under this Clause they may undertake to refund to the compensation fund a sum which represents the value of the loss of the licence if the renewal of the licence is refused. I take it that they would take account of the point raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), when he drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that the compensation fund is provided by the licence owners themselves for redundant houses, and if a house becomes redundant by reason of the planning authority intervening and acquiring it, then it seems to me that this provides a reasonable procedure for enabling the planning authority to contribute to the compensation fund a sum which will have to be paid by the compensation authority for the refusal to renew the licence. In those circumstances, I should have thought that this Clause was a reasonable addition to make to this Bill, and would meet the case which is likely to arise in a very fair and reasonable manner.

Captain Strickland: The last speaker seemed to refer only to paragraph (a) of this Clause. Paragraph (b) provides however, that if the local authorities acquire the licensed premises, they shall be able to draw from the compensation fund provided they are willing to surrender the licence. Is there any legal obligation there upon the local authorities that, during the time they hold the licence, they shall themselves contribute towards the fund as the owners of

the house, and that that shall be a charge which can reasonably be put on to the rates? It would be totally unfair for them to participate in the provisions of the compensation provided by the trade itself, unless they themselves, as owners acquiring these premises, became contributors to the fund.

Mr. A. Bevan: Surely the Clause fully protects the compensation fund in that matter because it says:
the licensing justices may refer the matter to the compensation authority
and the licensing justices would be the competent body to decide whether in fact the local authority has been reasonable in surrendering the licence or not.

Captain Strickland: I think the hon. Member will agree that the words "may" and "shall" become somewhat involved in legislation.

Mr. Bevan: But as the licensing authorities would normally be the body to decide the question of redundancy, they are the persons who ought to decide such a matter.

Captain Strickland: I am very sorry to interrupt again, but it seems to me that the point is this: We are in agreement on both sides of the Committee on this, that if the licensing authority has the power to award compensation to the local authority then surely, in reverse, the local authority should be liable to a contribution to the compensation fund. Is there legal provision to recover that from the rates?

Mr. Bevan: The first paragraph says that the local authority shall make a contribution to the compensation fund in certain circumstances where they have acquired licensed premises. In paragraph (b), on the other hand, the local authority can become a recipient of compensation from the compensation fund but only provided that the licensing justices have determined that in the light of new circumstances the premises should become redundant. If, on the other hand, a local authority merely surrenders its licence because it no longer wants to exercise it, I doubt very much whether the fund will be liable to pay any compensation at all. The licensing justices would, I imagine, take such a point into consideration in determining whether, in fact, the question of compensation should


be referred to the authority. I think in both cases the licensed premises are covered.

Captain Strickland: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend but it distinctly says:
if, after purchasing or contracting to purchase the premises, the purchasing authority"—
not the licensing authority—
intimate to the licensing justices that they are willing to surrender the licence …
then they are to draw compensation.

Sir H. Williams: I do not understand this Clause but I hope the Minister does because, under the first paragraph,
the purchasing authority … may undertake …
and, if they "may undertake" they land themselves in expenditure. If they do not "undertake," they free themselves of all expenditure. If they had it in their minds that the licence of the licensed premises is to be discontinued, obviously they would not give any undertaking but would wait for paragraph (b) to operate, in which case the compensation, instead of coming out of the rates, is going to come out of the levies, which I understand are made under the Licensing Act of 1904.

Mr. Bevan: No. May I call the hon. Member's attention to the words:
… the licensing justices may refer the matter to the compensation authority and that authority, on being satisfied that the licence, if not surrendered, might properly have been dealt with as a redundant licence …
which I should think is perfect protection, because compensation will come only if the category is one of redundancy which would have occurred in normal circumstances.

Sir H. Williams: I think my hon. Friend has missed the point. If they give the undertaking under paragraph (a), the licensing authority are then involved in expenditure. If they hold back on the assumption that the licence is likely to be declared redundant by the magistrate, they draw from the fund. Obviously, no local authority will act under paragraph (a) and run the risk of paying something when, under paragraph (b) they had a chance of picking up something. If I were a local authority, I would act under paragraph (b).

Mr. Bevan: But they cannot help themselves.

Mr. G. Hutchinson: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has overlooked the fact that under paragraph (b) the compensation authority contributes out of the compensation fund towards the compensation paid by the purchasing authority in respect of the purchase of the premises.

Mr. Bevan: Precisely.

Sir H. Williams: In other words, out of the publicans' levy or the brewers' levy, whichever you call it. Nevertheless, under paragraph (b) the local authority can get some money, and under paragraph (a) they are bound to pay out money. Nobody will work under paragraph (a) if they think they can get something under paragraph (b), and I cannot understand why paragraph (a) exists as long as we have paragraph (b).

Mr. Woodburn: As far as I can judge, the hon. Gentleman is misreading both paragraphs. Under paragraph (a) the purchasing authority must make the decision before purchasing the premises. Once that act is complete, and only after that, does paragraph (b) come into force. There is no alternative. After that, paragraph (b) comes into force.

Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend is still rather confused. He talks as though the local authorities will make the exercise of options to buy licensed premises a habit. The local authority can do no such thing. The local authority is going to buy licensed premises only where such purchase is a part of their development plan.

Sir H. Williams: We are dealing with such cases.

Mr. Bevan: That is precisely where that will come into operation, where the local authority becomes the purchaser of licensed premises. As the owner of them, the local authority is under an obligation to pay to the compensation fund which, in fact, it will do.

Sir H. Williams: rose—

Mr. Bevan: If my hon. Friend will permit me. This is what paragraph (a) says:
they will pay to the compensation authority towards the compensation payable …
Even if they get a renewal, they still have to pay to the compensation authority and


they can charge the amount which they would have to pay in compensation to the development scheme itself.

4.15 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Member has got it wrong. Paragraph (a) applies when they think that the licence is going to be cancelled. Therefore, they give an undertaking that they will make certain payments. Under (b) it is not a question of the licence being cancelled, but of the local authorities, of their own volition, surrendering the licence. If, on their own volition, they surrender and then the justices do something, they draw out of the brewers' levy: under (a) they have to make a payment into the fund; and I do not see how the two things make sense.

Sir Geoffrey Ellis (Sheffield, Eccleshall): There may be nothing in the compensation fund. Then (a) will be the only way.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope that the Committee will let me proceed with this Clause, on the understanding that I will have a look at the various speeches that have been made and see if I can do anything to meet the position. This matter is highly technical, and refers to the licensing code of 1904. As I understand it, if you want to get rid of the licence, because it is redundant, and not because of any objection to the character of the licensee or anything of that sort, the authority that comes in at that stage is not the justices, but the compensating authority, which has a fund, which is fed by levies.

Sir H. Williams: The justices come in first.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, they say that the licence is redundant; and, when they decide that it is redundant—and provided that that is the only ground on which they refuse it—they refer the matter to the compensating authority. The compensation fund is made up of a levy on licences. Therefore, the compensating authority is liable to contribute to the fund, like everybody else. This provides for an arrangement between the compensating authority and the purchasing authority when, in fact, the purchasing authority is doing, or has done, part of the compensating authority's work.

Either when it proposes to buy the premises, or when it has bought the premises and proposes to give them up, it says, "You ought, from the compensating fund to make some contribution." I think that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) and other hon. Members take the general view about (b) that this is really, as far as the compensating fund is concerned, to be raised by levies from the trade, and that, under paragraph (b) of this Clause, it is proposed to draw from that fund for what is really a planning purpose. If they look at paragraph (b) they will see, in line 14, that the governing words are that the compensating authority
on being satisfied that the licence, if not surrendered, might properly have been dealt with as a redundant licence, shall contribute. …
That is to say, if I have grasped this right, as I think I have, that where the compensating authority themselves have come to the conclusion that this is a proper case where a redundant licence ought to be compensated for, they can make a contribution to the purchasing authority, which has bought it and is willing to give it up. I do not think, subject to what my hon. Friends may think on reflection, that there is much wrong with that. It seems to me that the compensating authority have first to be satisfied that the licence is redundant, and then, and only then, can they make this contribution. It is their duty, as guardians of the compensation fund, to refuse any contribution until they have made up their minds that it is the sort of licence for which there would have to be compensation in any case.

Sir R. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend going to deal with the Morris Report?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly look at the point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Control of development carried out by interim development authorities and responsible authorities.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section and of any regulations made thereunder—

(a) the authority empowered by an interim development order to permit the development of any land shall not, except with the consent of the Minister, carry out on that


land any development other than development which is permitted by the interim development order itself;
(b) the authority responsible for the enforcement of any provisions of a planning scheme shall not, except with the consent of the Minister, carry out any development to which those provisions apply other than development which, if they were not so responsible, they would be entitled to carry out thereunder without the permission or approval of the responsible authority;

and the consent of the Minister under this Section may be given either as respects any particular development or as respects development of any description, and either subject to or free from any conditions or limitations.
(2) If any development for which the consent of the Minister is required under this Section is carried out by an interim development authority or a responsible authority without such consent, or if any conditions or limitations imposed on the grant of such consent (including conditions or limitations as to the period for which any building or use may be maintained or continued) are not complied with, the Minister may, if he thinks fit, give directions to the authority requiring them to take such steps in respect thereof (whether by the removal or alteration of any building or work, the discontinuance of any use, or the reinstatement of any land) as he considers requisite having regard to the provisions of the scheme, or, as the case may be, to the provisions which ought in his opinion to be included in the proposed scheme; and any Such directions shall be enforceable, on an application made on behalf of the Minister, by mandamus:
Provided that before giving any directions under this Sub-section, the Minister shall give notice to the authority of his intention so to do, and shall, if they so require, afford them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose.
(3) In relation to any development by an interim development authority who carry on a statutory undertaking, being development carried out upon land to which Section twenty-eight of this Act applies, the reference in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of this Section to the Minister shall be construed as a reference to the Minister and the appropriate Department; and paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-two of this Act the proviso to Sub section (1) of Section twenty-nine of this Act, and Sub-sections (2), (3) (6) and (7) of the last-mentioned Section, shall apply in relation to any application for consent under this Section in respect of any such development as if in the said Sub-section (7) for the reference to Section three of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943, there were substituted a reference to Sub-section (1) of this Section.
(4) For the purposes of Section forty-one of the Town and Country Planning Act, 2932 (which provides that the provisions of a planning scheme shall not apply to land held or used by statutory undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking except in so far as they consent thereto) a responsible authority who carry on a statutory undertaking shall be

deemed to consent to the application of the provisions of the scheme to any land belonging to them which is held or used by them for the purposes of that undertaking unless and until they have given to the Minister notice in writing stating that they withhold the consent.
(5) The Minister may make regulations with respect to the manner in which applications for consent may be made under this section, and with respect to the granting of consent thereunder, and in particular provision may be made by any such regulations—

(a) for dispensing, in relation to any such development as may be specified in the regulations, with the necessity for such consent;
(b) for securing that, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be so specified, an application for the sanction of the Minister or of any Government Department or authority, made in respect of any development under any enactment other than this section, shall be treated as a sufficient application for such consent.

(6) Except as expressly provided by this Section, the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1932 and 1943, and of this Act relating to interim development applications and the revocation or modification of permission granted thereon shall not apply to an application for consent made under this Section by an interim development authority.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a long Clause, and I am afraid it is extremely technical, owing to the technicalities of planning legislation. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain, rather as a layman to laymen, what the purpose of the Clause is, and what it does; of course, being prepared to answer such technical points as may be raised. I have some hope that they will not be raised, for this reason: that they could only be raised by lawyers, and the lawyers will see the answers. The purpose of this Clause is to fill a very important gap in the existing law. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning exercises, by the nature of his office and the wish of the House, certain control over development of land throughout England and Wales. That is exercised through the machinery, mainly, of the Act of 1932 and the Act of 1943. The way my right hon. Friend exercises that control is mainly through supervision of the control that is exercised by the planning authority itself. The would-be developer of land applies to the planning authority for leave to develop that land, and, if that permission is refused, the would-be developer has a right


of appeal to the Minister. The matter çan come before my right hon. Friend in that way, or, if it is of great importance, my right hon. Friend can ask for the decision on the application to be referred to him. It is in this way that my right hon. Friend controls development throughout England and Wales.
But there is one exception to this possibility of control and it is with that exception that this new Clause is designed to deal. That exception arises when the planning authority is itself the developer. There is no obligation on the local authority to apply to itself for an interim development consent; and, therefore, there is no application over which my right hon. Friend has any control. This apparently complicated new Clause is designed to give my right hon. Friend the same sort of control where the development is carried out by the planning authority itself as he would have if someone else had to apply in the first instance to the local authority. As I think the Committee will appreciate, where the planning authority has had to devote its mind to the merits of an application made to it, even there the Minister has and needs a right of some control or supervision. It is more than ever necessary in a case where the planning authority itself might, in eager pursuance of some desirable object perhaps, not have given adequate attention to planning considerations at all. In any event, there is the same case for my right hon. Friend having some control, and therefore some responsibility to the House, as if it were one of those applications for which he has control under the existing law. It would very much astonish the Committee, I think, to learn that there are cases in which every Member of this Committee would assume that the Minister had control under planning legislation, whereas in fact, until this Clause is embodied in legislation, my right hon. Friend has no statutory control at all.
On the apparent complication of the matter, perhaps I should say a little about the form of the Clause. Sub-section (1, a) gives effective control over interim development—and practically all the land in the country is at present in the interim development stage. Sub-section (1, b) contains corresponding provisions to deal with an operative scheme. Sub-section (2) gives the Minister a remedy if things are

done without, or contrary to, his consent. Sub-section (3) is put in to give an additional safeguard for statutory undertakers, to make it certain that where their operational developments are affected, the matter is attended to, not only by my right hon. Friend, but also by the Government Department mainly concerned with that statutory undertaking. The rest of the Clause deals with various technicalities, to make the new control effective. I hope that I have given enough preliminary explanation of the Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

Mr. Wilmot: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 2, at end, insert:
any power to permit development conferred by a planning scheme on the responsible authority thereunder, or by an interim development order on the interim development authority thereunder shall, in relation to development carried out after the commencement of this Act by the authority themselves, be exercisable by the Minister.
The Amendments to the new Clause which are on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and myself are designed to meet what appears to be an objection to a Clause with the purpose of which we have sympathy. It would appear, as the Clause is drafted, that the public authority which is developing is going to be in a worse position than the private developer; and, as I should gather that that is not the Minister's intention, I would ask him to accept this series of Amendments, or to give us an undertaking that he will look at the point and cover it on the next stage. As I understand the position, the private developer, under the 1932 Act, is not under an obligation in every case to come to him for permission. It is true that if he proceeds without permission he may suffer certain penalties or disadvantages. The public developer, under this new Clause, would be bound to come to him for permission; and, in certain circumstances, the public developer would, therefore, be in a less favourable position than he would have been with the same proposals had he been a private developer.


The same objection applies where compensation becomes payable. If it were a private developer, in certain circumstances, if he has been injuriously affected by the operation of a town and country planning scheme, he may claim certain compensation. As I understand the new Clause, a public authority developer would not be able to claim that compensation. Neither my hon. Friends nor I have any wish to hamper the purpose of the Clause, which is to give the Minister general powers of control, but we do not wish a public authority which is carrying out development to be in a less advantageous position than a private developer would be.

4.30 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member talked about a public developer. Has he in mind simply a local planning authority, or is he talking about a public authority, such as the British Broadcasting Corporation, or the Post Office?

Mr. Wilmot: What I had in mind was a municipal electricity undertaking. I believe Durham is such a case. The Minister is reviewing certain development proposals there having regard to their effect upon the view and so on. I am anxious to secure that such a municipal undertaking would not be put in a worse position than if it had been a private undertaking.

Mr. H. Strauss: Perhaps I might have a discussion with the hon. Member afterwards. I think I can satisfy him without much difficulty that the words of the Clause are better, both in form and in substance, than those of his Amendment. He said a private developer would not be actually prohibited from carrying on development, but he could be stopped. It a private developer were rash enough to go on without permission, he could be compelled under the Act which we passed last year to remove what he had done at his own expense, which is a very real sanction.

Mr. Wilmot: It often goes on like that and development is carried out without permission.

Mr. Strauss: I think the hon. Member is thinking of the law as it was before we altered it last year with this very

drastic sanction. Possibly that is what happened between 1932 and 1943, but I should be surprised if he could point to a case where it had happened since. The Amendment would merely transfer to the Minister the consent powers where the authority themselves are the developers. Under the law as it stands there is room for doubt whether a responsible authority is bound by the provisions of the scheme, and whether the interim development authority can obtain their own permission for development in the interim period. Therefore our form of words is superior. The Amendment would not affect or improve matters as far as compensation is concerned. There again it is highly technical, because in 99 cases out of 100 the question of compensation is irrelevant, since it would be the same body who were paying and receiving compensation, but since the only development for which permission would in practice be likely to be refused would be development contrary to the national interest or to the interests of other local authorities, there appears to be no ground for payment of compensation. But I will go into matters with the hon. Member. They are too technical to be discussed with convenience across the Floor. We cannot accept the Amendments nor, I think, will the hon. Member on consideration think them as suitable as what is on the Paper.

Mr. Wilmot: I should like the hon. Gentleman to go a little further and give an undertaking that he will see to it that a public developer, both in respect of compensation and otherwise, is put in no worse position than a private developer would be. If he will give that undertaking, we will discuss the manner of achieving it.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I understood from the hon. Member's earlier speech that he had particularly in mind the case of a local authority which is a statutory undertaking. I have checked over the safeguards that there are for a local authority conducting such an undertaking and, in my view, under our wording they are just as well protected. If there is any further point that strikes him, I, too, shall be pleased to consider it, but that is my considered view having looked at it again.

Mr. Wilmot: It may be that activities of a local authority which are not strictly speaking activities of a statutory authority might not be covered in the same way. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would say that whatever it is necessary to do to put the local authority developer in no worse position will be done, I shall be happy to withdraw.

Mr. H. Strauss: I think I can give the undertaking.
Amendment negatived.
Question again proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

Mr. G. Hutchinson: I think the Committee will agree that my right hon. Friend should have the powers he is going to take in this new Clause but, if he is going to look at the matter again before Report, I invite him to consider whether the power he is going to take will not actually go very much further than the case requires. There is an Amendment to the Clause, on the Paper in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), which has not been selected. I should have thought that, if the Clause were limited in the way suggested in that Amendment, it would be sufficiently wide to enable my right hon. Friend to exercise the measure of control of development of this nature which he is going to exercise. I would in the circumstances invite him, when he looks at the Clause again, to see whether it would not be possible to give local authorities a little wider scope than he proposes to give them at present and to restrict the power to control the development that they may promote on their own site to those major subjects which I think my right hon. Friend had in mind when he put the Clause down.

Mr. Strauss: It is certainly contemplated that it may be possible to do quite a lot in that matter to relieve local authorities, and that is the purpose of Sub-section (5), which enables the Minister to authorise certain classes of application without the necessity of this control. I will consider the point, but I think that Sub-section gives my hon. and learned Friend what he wants.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to extend the area of a local planning authority.)

If within two years from the commencement of this Act the Minister on representations made to him by a local planning authority is satisfied that in the case of land designated under Section one of this Act the carrying out of an adequate and satisfactory planning scheme will be delayed or frustrated because the planning scheme will lead to a serious loss of population he shall have power to set up a boundary commission, who, after taking evidence from all interests likely to be affected thereby, shall have power to extend the area of the local planning authority concerned.—[Mr. Storey.]

Brought up, and read First time.

Mr. Storey: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Its purpose is to enable certain cities and towns, only seven in number, which are both widely devastated and are short of land within their boundaries, to extend their boundaries, so that they may be able to replan their civic future on sound and imaginative lines. Such planning demands that they should reduce their congestion, both industrial and human, by rehousing some of their citizens and re-siting some of their industries, as well as their civic services and amenities, in surrounding areas with due regard to agricultural and rural interests and to maintenance of the amenities of the whole area. Such planning will result, if the boundaries are not extended, in a loss of population and rateable value which will be crippling to the parent city and will leave it with a burden of debt disproportionate to the remaining population and rateable value. It will leave it also with public services and an administrative organisation on a scale quite unsuited to its reduced status. Furthermore, there will follow a loss of civic interest which anyone who has knowledge of the Special Areas, where anyone who can, lives outside the area and takes no part in civic affairs, results in a most deplorable state of affairs.
4.45 p.m.
It we refuse an extension of boundaries to these towns, they will be faced with an overload of debt and left with a top-heavy administrative unit and with public services designed for a population which will not again be achievable. They will be deprived, too, of the opportunity of extending their public services to their shifted population and of unified control over the execution of their development


plan and over its future administration. Also, after the new Clause that we have added to the Bill just now, they may not have the right of rehousing their own people outside their own borough boundaries. If we are faced with these results of a refusal to extend boundaries, it is only human nature if civic authorities plan to lower standards and greater density than is desirable.
If these cities and towns had not been both blitzed and blighted, and at the same time were not short of land within their boundaries, I should be the first to say that the usual procedure should take its course, but in these cities both factors exist and devastation requires that we should act quickly. One could best illustrate what one means by the example of Plymouth, for not only do both factors operate there, but Plymouth has produced a plan which is bold in conception and far-seeing in vision. I do not, however, propose to illustrate my point from Plymouth, for I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Plymouth will follow me in supporting this new Clause. I only mention it so that I may pay a tribute to what Plymouth has done and to its plan.
I would rather illustrate my point from my own constituency of Sunderland. Sunderland, before the war, had a density of population of 26 to the acre, against an average for all county boroughs of 15. It had 1.45 families per dwelling, and only 50 per cent. of the families in Sunderland were in undivided possession of their own homes. While Sunderland has not suffered as other cities have, the position has been aggravated by the fact that 9 per cent. of the houses have been either destroyed or very seriously damaged and 81 per cent. have been damaged to some extent. Sunderland will require 12,500 homes to deal with over-crowding and slum clearance alone, and one-third of these must go outside the county borough. Sunderland must also provide schools, play-grounds and playing fields to meet the requirements of the Minister of Education. It will need a minimum of 600 acres when the school age is raised to 15, and of 700 acres when it is raised to 16. That is one-tenth of the present area of the county borough. That does not take account of county colleges, nursery schools and other special schools. Already Sunderland has had to put outside its borough boundaries

schools which cater for children living within the borough.
There is a third reason. Sunderland depends very largely upon the heavy industries of coal and shipbuilding. It is essential to its future development that it should have new light industries, and these can best be located in the clearance areas in the borough where facilities are available. This, too, is in accordance with Government policy, but it will involve the town in a loss of rateable value. For these reasons, if we are to carry out the intentions of the Bill, if we are to deal with war damaged areas, which, to quote the words of the Bill,
should be laid out afresh and redeveloped as a whole,
if we are to deal with conditions of "bad lay-out and obsolete development," if we are to provide open spaces, playing fields and sites for industrial purposes, if, indeed, we are to carry out the intentions of the Government, we must go outside the borough boundaries. If we go outside without an extension of those boundaries, we will create a rateable value where none now exists, and we will lay the foundations for a heavy claim for compensation if ever the boundaries are extended. If we do not later get an extension, we shall have the existing debt, which is over £5,000,000, borne on a lower rateable value by fewer ratepayers. With Government assistance the rate is now 17s. 6d. in the £. If one-tenth of the population go outside the county borough without taking a share of that liability, the rate will be measured not by shillings in the pound, but by pounds.
If, therefore, we are to plan boldly and with vision, the question of boundaries must be settled first. Otherwise, everything we build outside may involve us in heavy compensation if the boundaries be extended, or a heavy burden of debt if they are not. Blitz and blight make it imperative that we shall act quickly. Therefore, we ask for some quicker method of extending our boundaries than now exists. The need for such a quicker method was recognised in the statement which the Minister of Health made to the House on 3rd August, when he said that the Government were satisfied that there was need and scope for amending the machinery of the Local Government Act, 1933, relating to adjustment of status, boundaries


and areas. This new Clause proposes the way in which we may temporarily meet that need in strictly limited instances by means of a boundary commission. I am not closely wedded to this particular method. There is merit in a similar new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), which would give the power to the Minister of Health. What does matter is that some such power should be taken.
I shall probably be told that a Town and Country Planning Bill is not the place to take such power and that we must await a Bill dealing with local authorities. I may also be reminded that the Minister of Health is to open negotiations as soon as may be, that after that he will lay the outline of proposals before the House, and that after that again he will propose legislation. When is it likely that such legislation will appear upon the Statute Book? Those of us who have seen spring extend into autumn, who have learned that "by the harvest" is a kind of political recurring decimal to which there is no finality, may be pardoned if, when our need is great, we ask for action now. The new Clause asks for present action, but action which is strictly limited to a particular purpose. It asks it so that these seven cities and towns which have suffered severely by enemy action may direct their minds to putting into effect the declared policy of Parliament, free from the consideration that they are either laying themselves open to heavy bills for compensation or taking upon their shoulders a heavy burden of debt.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has stated with great competence a most forceful case. I hope he has persuaded the Minister to accept the proposed new Clause. He spoke with a sense of responsibility on behalf of a number of cities. The object of the Bill is to enable cities which have suffered war damage to reconstruct their fortunes upon a proper basis. The first effect of any good planning scheme must be to reduce the number of persons who inhabit any particular area. Wider streets, more parks and playgrounds and greater amenities, must result in a reduction of the number of inhabitants. The key-note of the Minister's speech on Second Reading was:
"You must take a central, a unified view." He has repeated that argument, again and again, in the course of the Committee stage. He spoke of the case of the London squares as an illustration of what can happen when a central view is not taken. He pointed to the destruction of those squares, and the aesthetic injury that had been done to those squares, when the same land fell into a number of different ownerships. When a city is to be reconstructed under the Bill, its population has to be reduced. The authority must make provision for the surplus population. Accordingly, it must make use of land in contiguous areas, outside its own boundaries. What is the sustenance upon which cities live? It is rateable value. Population makes rateable value; consequently, if you get rid of population, you get rid of rateable value; your rateable value is less than it would be if your people had remained within your area.

Captain Cobb: Is the right hon. Member aware that the housing estates which were built outside London by the London County Council have been the cause of great friction with neighbouring authorities, who complained of the immense cost that those populations had been, as a consequence of being translated?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That has not been the experience of the country as a whole. At Plymouth, for instance, that has not been the experience. The experience has been that the best type of resident, from a rateable value point of view, has gone out, and paid a lower rate. He has come in and used the amenities of the city, and got the full advantage of the activities of the city, but he has paid a lower rate by living outside the boundary of the city. When the city, through Private Bill legislation, applied for and succeeded in obtaining an extension of its boundaries, it had to pay £500,000 to the neighbouring authorities in order to get back the rateable value which it had itself caused to be created. That was the experience of Plymouth. A city can judge of its own interests, which cannot be disposed of by an interruption in the Committee stage of a Bill.

Sir H. Williams: What about the Private Bill legislation?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The proposal of the Bill is that a boundary commission should


inquire into these matters, that the city should be enabled to state its case—not to impose its will—and that neighbouring authorities should be able to state their case. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has asked about Private Bill legislation; when Plymouth last extended its boundaries, it did so by that procedure. It took many years, and cost £80,000 in lawyers' fees.
The Bill has been brought before the House in order that our cities may replan in our lifetime, and quickly. An expedited procedure has been suggested for acquiring land from private interests. The constitutional and historic method of acquiring land has been altered, but he who wills the end, must supply the means. He who says to the cities: "You must replan," must give them the opportunity to do so. The blitzed cities come here and say: "Very well. We would like to state a case for the extension of our boundaries. We do not wish to build up rateable value in the neighbouring areas which we shall have to acquire afterwards at a great cost. We do not wish contiguous areas to take the unearned increment. We wish to plan now and we wish that our boundaries should be defined now." No dictatorial method is suggested. If my right hon. Friend wishes to suggest any other method which would safeguard the neighbouring interests, let him do so.
It is quite clear that the neighbouring interests have something to say. The urban district of Plympton has something to say. It has circulated every Member of the House, quite rightly. Why should it not state its case before an inquiry? The House of Commons cannot adjudicate as between Plymouth and Plympton. The House of Commons is telling Plymouth to plan, not Plympton. Plymouth is an urban area, but there are great open spaces in Plympton which could be utilised to great advantage. It is suggested that a boundary commission should be appointed. This week, I think, the House of Commons is setting up a Boundary Commission, to adjudicate on the size of Parliamentary constituencies. Some hon. Members will have smaller constituencies. A boundary commission, in this case, is considered to be a satisfactory agency for determining the size of constituencies. My hon. Friend suggests that a boundary commission might ex-

peditiously dispose of this matter. Judges could be put on the commission, and that the rival interests could bring forward their cases. Before recourse could be had to such a commission, it would have to be shown that the plan would be frustrated unless an adjustment of boundaries could be conceded.
Plymouth—and Plymouth must be mentioned—had a population of 220,000. As a result of this plan we shall have a population of only 170,000; 50,000 people will go outside our area as a result of our foresight and our vision, taking with them £10 per head of rateable value. Fifty thousand people and £500,000 will go, but we in Plymouth will have to keep up the same services. We shall have to provide education on the same scale, roads on a better scale. Our electric light and gas undertakings will lose revenue which these people would otherwise provide. They will take their gas and electricity from another area. When we produce our plan, we would like to state our case before an impartial authority for a revision of our boundaries.
Time is of the essence of the contract. If this he a planning Bill—it has many defects but it has great vision attached to it—let the cities plan, let them state their case. There is no seizing anybody's rights from them. My right hon. Friend may say that this is a local government matter. But planning is a local government matter. Everything depends on the area to be planned. If we are to take this unified view, I hope we shall not hear that old tale with which I am very familiar from both sides of the House, that "That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister for something else." My right hon. Friend has introduced this Bill, and he must see that it contains the Clauses which give the powers to carry out his great project. I would, therefore, appeal to my right hon. Friend to show his seriousness in this matter, and to recognise that this Clause is supported by a large number of blitzed cities. These are the cities for whose benefit the Bill is mainly introduced, and we have confidence that my right hon. Friend will grant this Clause which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend.

The Deputy Prime Minister: (Mr. Attlee): I have a brief statement to make which ought to be made to the House now. As soon as this is completed the


House will be asked again to resolve itself into Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill.
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair."
Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN SECRETARY (VISIT TO MOSCOW)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Mr. Attlee: The House will wish me to inform them that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have arrived safely in Moscow for discussions with Marshal Stalin and M. Molotov. They are accompanied by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and the chief staff officers of the Minister of Defence, together with other military advisers. This meeting is the sequel to the meeting between the Prime Minister and President Roosevelt at Quebec. Marshal Stalin, who was unable to accept the invitation to go to Quebec, welcomed the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary so soon afterwards. The meeting in Moscow has the fullest approval of the United States Government, and the United States Ambassador, Mr. Averell Harriman, will be the representative of the United States at the conversations.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Resolved: "That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Accordingly considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to extend the area of a local planning authority.)

Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: I hope I may have the sympathy of the Committee if I do not agree with the speeches delivered by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). I have the greatest sympathy for their motives

in moving and supporting this Clause. Perhaps the Noble Lady will forgive me for saying that I admire the Plymouth plan, and I hope she will not think that I am in any way opposing the underlying objects of this proposed Clause. I had the opportunity of seeing the Bristol people in the blitz, and I had first-hand knowledge of the courage of the Queen City of the West. Whoever happens to be the Member for Thornbury, is regarded as a semi-representative of Bristol and is asked to their functions and dinners. I hope they will not think that I am biting the hand that fed me when I say that I am sorry that I cannot support this Clause. I doubt if it is wise to introduce into a Bill of this kind a Clause which must forestall a major Measure dealing with a different objective. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport will agree with me that this Clause, if passed, must affect the whole future of local government, and as the hon. Member for Sunderland has said the Minister of Health made a statement, I think on 3rd August, announcing that the matter required reconsideration as regards the adjustment of boundaries and areas, and I understand that conversations have been going on with the local authorities.

Viscountess Astor: I would like to hear from the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he really thinks that a Bill to reorganise local authorities has any chance of coming before us within five years, and whether he thinks when it does so there is any chance of its being passed.

Sir D. Gunston: I appreciate the Noble Lady's fear. That was the point of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport—the question of time. I think we are entitled to ask the Minister if the Government will soon be in a position to make any announcement with regard to dealing with the extension of local government boundaries, and I think that either a White Paper or a statement should be put before the House and we should really consider the whole problem of local boundaries and the question of local government before we can accept a Clause like this. It seems to me if you accept this Clause, excellent as its intentions are it absolutely hamstrings the whole development of local government in the future.
5.15 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport talked about development


of the area according to rateable value and population, but I think he will agree that if we passed this Clause, we are driven to accept, whether we want it or not, centralisation based on the big town. Are we convinced that that is necessarily the right solution in the development of local government? I am not expressing an opinion, but I think it would be unwise to drive us to that conclusion.
The right hon. Gentleman, in a powerful speech, avoided one of the great weaknesses of his case, at which I was rather surprised, because he always speaks with the greatest courage and never funks his fences. In this case he deliberately funked his fence. I see by his smile that he knows what the fence was, but for the benefit of those who do not I will say that if we passed this Clause we would take away the protection of Parliament from the small local authority. We can argue whether that is wise or not, but that is what will happen. Are we sure we ought to take away the protection of Parliament from the smaller authorities? Are we sure that the smaller local authorities are always more inefficient than the larger ones, that they do not understand their localities as well as the larger ones do? May I give an example? In my constituency there is the Urban District Council of Kingswood, which is practically in Bristol and is alongside the constituency of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). That Council does very good work. It may be argued that it ought to go in into the City of Bristol. If it did, instead of there being a large number of people sitting on that Council the area would be represented in Bristol by two councillors. I am not arguing that that is right or wrong, but I am saying that under present law, if that local authority objected to going into Bristol, it would not have to unless it had been established by Private Bill procedure in Parliament that it must go in.
I want to remind the Committee, that our Private Bill procedure is very valuable. I do not know whether many Members here have sat on Private Bill Committees. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor)—one can hardly believe it to look at her—is shortly to celebrate 25 years in the House. She has probably sat on Private Bill Committees, and will know

that there are no fairer Committees in the world. Both sides give evidence and whether they lose or win they go away knowing that they have had a fair deal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport—or perhaps I ought to have said "Friend"—wants to sweep that away. He wants to set up a boundary commission. I think we ought to proceed very carefully before we sweep away that protection. It may be cumbersome and expensive, and there may be great arguments for sweeping it away, but surely it can only be done in a big Measure which has had the full consideration of Parliament, and ought not to be done in a Clause like this.
There is one other point I want to put, and it is in regard to rateable value. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport made a great point about the loss of rateable value. It is quite true that if a large city goes outside its boundaries and builds houses and so on it creates rateable value. But it also acquires rateable value and I was astonished to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland talk, about building houses in areas where there is no rateable value. Unless you are to have a jig-saw puzzle in extending beyond your boundaries, you are bound to build and acquire houses where there are other houses near by. For instance, if you extended from Bristol into the Thornbury Division you would be bound to acquire some valuable rateable value. The county has to keep up its roads—I know they get a grant from the Government—but it is the complaint to-day that we subscribe heavily for roads that are used by town dwellers. If you spread beyond your boundaries you would have more people using the county roads and the county would have lost rateable value, thereby increasing the burden on the county. To-day, many people in these areas are not getting the amenities which people in the towns get.
All that shows that while we should not maintain the status quo—of course not—the whole problem requires great consideration and can only be done by means of a major Measure. May I suggest that those who support the Clause would probably be satisfied not to press it, if they could have a satisfactory answer from the Minister in regard to the time it will be before the Government announce their plans about adjustment of


local government boundaries. I think they see the difficulties they would get into about the future of local government if this Clause were passed. On the other hand, they are worried about time. I hope the Minister will reassure us that conversations have gone on, and that he will be in a position soon to introduce a White Paper, and that there will not be undue delay, in dealing with local government boundaries on a comprehensive scale.

Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: In a Clause of this nature, which is applied to a limited number of cities, it is difficult not to come here for special pleading on behalf of the city one represents. This particular problem applies to a limited number of cities throughout the country. They are the ones mainly affected by blitz damage, and they are largely the cities concentrated in the thought of this Bill as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) explained the whole principle so clearly that it seems almost unnecessary to repeat it in detail, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) brought forward many points of detail affecting Plymouth and Devonport. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to Plymouth City itself. Under the Bill, there is compulsion, in order to replan our towns, but this will dislodge a certain amount of population, and accommodation for that population must be found elsewhere. There are circumstances which even aggravate that particular situation. Due to Services needs, a lot of Plymouth might be taken away for other purposes, which will increase the call on land available within the city boundary. In that event, Plymouth would have a special case.
I think that, in the main, disagreement between Members of this Committee, between town Members and those from country constituencies, arises very largely on the question of the financial provisions for local authorities and their rates. It is true that, if the Plymouth population goes out into the country, the rating value in the country will increase, and that in the town will decrease. At the same time, the town will lose rateable value, and it has to plan to incur heavy liabilities in that replanning, which it must do under

this Bill. Therefore, I think it is only fair that, if rateable value be pushed out from the centre, in the exporting sense, into the counties, some compensation should be given to the cities for the revenue which they will lose. The best way in which this compensation can be afforded, is by extending the boundaries and allowing the cities to have the rateable value of the populations which are displaced.
If it comes down to that question—and in many cases it must—the whole position must be valued up, and both sides heard, as to what one might lose and the other might gain. So far as Plymouth is concerned, I think it is known that something like 28,000 families will have to be displaced, and that will entail, in later years, a larger number, and the net loss of rateable value must be something like £130,000 a year. The county gains what the city loses, but there is no reason why the county should be compensated for what it would never have had, but for the blitz. I think it is true that every hon. Member agrees that no one should make profit out of war.

Mr. Cocks: Except the landowners.

Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: Clearly, I think the county authorities would be making a profit out of the war, and out of the damage which has been done to the city. These blitzed cities have, of course, heavy loans against them. They are going to lose rateable value and thus have less security than that on which they raised those loans in the past. That is a point which must be borne in mind. I hope the Committee will agree to the proposal because this is an emergency provision to meet an exceptional case. In the ordinary event, this position would not have arisen. It is purely as an emergency measure that we ask for this. A Boundary Commission, before which all parties can put their case and compensation assessed for what is lost and gained between town and country arrived at in equity, would, I believe, be an advantage all round.

Commander Agnew: Can the hon. and gallant Member say how, in the Plymouth proposal, when population is taken away from a county authority, the loss is to be made good?

Colonel Guest: I tried to answer that by saying that, owing to the blitz and also to circumstances connected with the Services, the city will lose something like 24,000 or 28,000 families, and their rateable revenue will go into the county. The city will definitely lose the rateable value of that population, because the houses in which they will live will be built in the country, and not in the city. There is no room for them there.

Commander Agnew: But how will the county be reimbursed for the loss of the existing population?

Lieut.-Colonel Guest: They will lose something because of those localities coming into the city. That is a definite value, and it is a value they should certainly receive. But they should not receive compensation for what they have never had, which is the displaced population.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Windsor: I support this new Clause. When hon. Members are considering this matter, their minds should go back to what is the genesis of such a Clause and the reason for proposing that it should be put into the Bill. Most hon. Members will remember that, a few months ago, the Hull City Corporation introduced a Bill asking for somewhat similar terms, but for greater powers. They asked that they should be given authority to deal with blitzed areas. The Minister, on that occasion, more or less promised, if that Bill was withdrawn, that a comprehensive Measure would be introduced to deal with the problem of the blitzed cities. It was largely upon that ground that the House rejected the Hull Corporation Bill. The Corporation was not given the opportunity to go upstairs to state its case.
This is a most serious thing for blitzed cities. I do not think that there are any other blighted areas involved, but I would remind the Committee of the fact that, in the King's Speech, a promise was made that there would be a Bill dealing with the general replanning of blitzed cities. It has been debated in the other Chamber and in this House for a considerable time, and many local authorities have got thoroughly "fed up" with being put off. It is true that the Hull Bill went further than this Clause, but this

would give us some small measure of satisfaction.
What is the situation in Hull? All that has been said about Plymouth, Bristol and any of the other cities, applies to Hull, with equal, if not with far greater force. Hull was a city of 350,000 people. As result of the blitz, it has come down to approximately 220,000. The Minister tells us to get on with planning, and the Hull Corporation is doing its best in relation to that, but, even with replanning, we will still have a surplus of population in the region of 50,000 to 70,000 people. It is perfectly obvious that, on rateable value alone, you are placing a burden on that city, which you have no right to place upon it. If, in expressing the views of the blitzed cities, we are somewhat disappointed with the purpose and intention of this Bill, it is because we maintain that is has never reached them. It is true it is now improved compared with what it was, but I was rather suspicious at the time that we got the promise, that it would not be implemented so as to give the blitzed cities their chance. I hope the Committee will give us our opportunity by embodying this Clause in the Bill.

Mr. Petherick: I also hope, with the hon. Member for Central Hull (Mr. Windsor), that this Bill will be improved before we part with it, though I trust that the announcement recently made to us with regard to the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow does not portend anything so far as the 1939 ceiling is concerned. I cannot agree with the rest of the speech of the hon. Member. I am not convinced that the Committee is really aware of how serious this new Clause is and the effect it would have on the general structure of local authority government if it were passed. It does, in fact, give complete power to the Boundary Commissioners to extend the area of a local planning authority. It takes it right away from the Minister and from the control of Parliament. Hon. Members have mentioned the possibility of the Boundary Commissioners assessing compensation and all that sort of thing. There is no provision in the Clause for any form of compensation. There is only power to extend the area of the local planning authority concerned with no appeal to anybody; no appeal to the Minister and no appeal to the House of Commons.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does not my hon. Friend recollect that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) said that he was not wedded to the exact wording of the Clause?

Mr. Petherick: I am certainly not wedded to the principle. I will try to give arguments in a reasonable way against the new Clause. I, personally, am not in the least against town and country planning proposals in general but planning with a big P is quite a different thing. This Bill and similar Measures generally envisage the proper lay-out of town and country and the proper relation of the one to the other. That could be accomplished under the Bill as it stands with the compensation Clauses inserted in some form or another.
We have heard a good deal of the City of Plymouth, and I do not want it to be thought in any way that I am making a purely Cornish speech on this Clause. Our relations with foreign powers continue to be friendly. I do not suppose we were ever on better terms with Devonshire and the City of Plymouth. Speaking as a Cornishman, we have the greatest and a most genuine admiration for the way in which the people of Plymouth have conducted themselves through these very hard and difficult years, but that does not say in the least that we necessarily agree with the proposals that are now put forward. Plymouth recently asked for, and got, a large extension of the city boundaries. In 1939 she asked for another 4,000 acres and got them. It is no doubt mainly due to the war, but, as far as I understand, those 4,000 acres have not yet been utilised. Part of the plan, and the immediate plan, should be the instant putting into use of those 4,000 acres before the City of Plymouth comes to Parliament and asks for what, in effect, by means of this Clause, is a large extension of boundaries. There are six or seven cities involved, I believe, in this Clause. The hon. Member for Central Hull has mentioned that Hull is one of them. One of my reasons for opposing it is precisely the same as the reason why I opposed the Hull Bill. I believe that it is not right to extend to six or seven or a certain number of cities that which ought to be part of a general code. Possibly in that code there may be provisions for exceptions and for special treatment of the most badly bombed cities,

but I do not think that the general law of local Government ought to be altered in this way in a planning Bill.
The City of Plymouth has recently said —I speak subject to correction by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) or anyone else conversant with the facts—that it did not want any extension of the borough boundaries. It is reasonable to ask, therefore, why it is that they have suddenly changed their minds within the last year and have asked for these further extensions. I do not want to tread on any toes here and I will try to put the point in as non-controversial a way as possible. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) said, quite rightly, as he is Member for part of Plymouth, that it is essential that these great urban communities should have all the powers they need to re-plan their own cities. But they are asking for more powers. They are asking for powers to re-plan the contiguous areas, which is a very different thing. I sometimes feel that people who live in great cities, and hon. Members and right hon. Members who represent them, are far too urban-minded and think far too much of the boroughs of this country and not enough of even dormitory areas and certainly not enough of the rural districts. There would be a great deal to be said for this new Clause if the new planning could not take place without it. We have had no evidence whatever to that effect so far. In Plymouth there is a new town planning committee in the course of being set up, and I see no particular reason why they should not come to an amicable agreement. The contiguous authorities of the county of Cornwall—Saltash, St. Germains and Tor Point—are reasonable people, and I do not see why agreement should not be arrived at with regard to this matter. It has been done so often in other cases in the past.
It really boils down to a question of money; it is a question of raising it. The bombed cities are naturally very anxious lest they should lose a considerable amount of the rates through many thousands of people going to live in contiguous areas. I know that the county of Cornwall will carry possibly higher rates as a result of the large influx of population which may come to them. It is not all one way. It was not always the great cities which were bombed that were


affected, but the areas round about. I do not think it is a good thing, on balance, for a great city in one county to be allowed to sprawl into an adjacent county. There is such a thing as county spirit. That does not mean that you dislike your next-door neighbours at all, but the spirit ought to be fostered in every way. It is unfortunate, when there is a great city in one corner of a county, particularly with a river which is the natural boundary on one side, to allow it to spread out into an adjacent county when no great reason for it has been proved. I hope that the Committee will reject the new Clause, but, at the same time, I also express the hope that the conversations which I understand are now proceeding between the Minister and others may be carried on in order that some sensible conclusion may be reached which will not have the effect of undermining either the local spirit, on the one side, or the general power of local authorities, and Parliament's protection of those local authorities, on the other.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I hope that the Minister will not give any support to the Clause and that the Committee will reject it. There has been a good deal of talk about the loss which certain cities will suffer through a removal of population, but I have not yet heard anybody point out that under certain aspects of the change they might easily secure greatly increased assessable value. I remember a very big change in Houndsditch in the City of London. I remember Houndsditch before the change and after the change, and there is no doubt in my mind that as a consequence of the change the rateable value of Houndsditch was increased enormously. Some time ago I stayed in Nottingham. I had seen the centre of Nottingham before it was redeveloped and I saw it after redevelopment, and while I have no figures I feel certain that although there is now a smaller population in the redeveloped area yet on account of the larger and better buildings the assessment of that particular area must have risen enormously. Norwich had a very big redevelopment scheme in the centre of the city, under which small properties of low assessment gave place to quite large buildings, and there, again, I have no doubt the assessable value increased enormously. After all, the great bulk of the people who will go out of the cities of Bristol, Hull, or Plymouth, will

be those who had occupied small houses of very low assessment, and I have no doubt that the new property erected under the redevelopment schemes will have greatly increased assessments.
The talk about the loss of assessable values is very largely imaginary, and I think that when we redevelop a place it will be found that instead of a loss there will be a gain, I live in a borough, and I do not think my borough would desire to support this proposed new Clause. Only a comparatively short time ago we were an urban district. We are not as big as we were when we were an urban district, and have lost a considerable number of our people. We as a borough would come under the Clause, but had we remained an urban district council we should not have come in. Why have certain boroughs been selected for this privileged position whereas equally important and equally large urban districts—and somebody has mentioned small agricultural towns—are not entited to benefit under the Clause? I want to see a redevelopment and an entire reconstruction of local government areas, but I want it done in an orderly way, and not in the patchwork manner we get in this Clause. I hope the Committee will not deal with this big question of reconstruction in the way suggested here. While all the talk was going on about compensation I was wondering who would pay the compensation. Who is expected to pay to these selected big cities the compensation to which they appear to think they are entitled? Is it to come from the taxpayers of urban districts which are not to share in the privileges of these cities, although some of them may have suffered a greater destruction than any of these cities? In my town we have had our share of destruction, and I know of urban districts not far away that have had their share, but they get no consideration at all from those who are representing the big cities. I hope the Committee will reject the Clause. I think it is based upon a bad principle, and that it would be doing in the wrong way a big job which I hope will be done under the general redevelopment and re-arrangement of local government.

Mrs. Tate: I rise to support the Clause. What we must all remember is that if a bombed city is to be rebuilt it must be rebuilt in as near a future as


possible, that it must be rebuilt with vision and imagination and in accordance with modern needs, and that there must be a plan upon which it can build before building starts. The hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) exhibited a curiously touching faith when he spoke. He said the Government had promised to amend local government. He and I have sat in Parliament for many years and have listened to many Government promises. I heard the Government promise that this country would have a civil air line across the South Atlantic in the Spring of 1937. Springs came and Springs followed each other, but the air line never materialised, to the great loss of this country, and, unlike the hon. Member, I am not prepared to depend upon Government promises. These cities have to be rebuilt. There is not one of us who has seen a bombed city who has not had a sense of appalling tragedy, but we have also felt that, ghastly as the destruction was, there was one good thing in the midst of that destruction, and that was that property which was often wholly unworthy of our age had been swept away. That was the only good thing. I think that all the seven cities under discussion are ancient cities. They were built to accord with the needs of a time that is past, when people moved very little, when we were far more of an agricultural country than we are to-day, before the internal combustion engine had made it necessary for us to have very wide streets. To-day our needs are different and these cities need to be rebuilt in order that they should be in accordance with the needs of the present. The hon. Member for Penrhyn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) made, I thought, a perfectly staggering statement when he said that it would be disastrous if one county were to spread into another, that at all costs we must preserve the present county boundaries.

Mr. Petherick: I did not use the word "disastrous," I said it would be generally unfortunate if they should do so; nor have I ever in my speech envisaged the possibility that no county boundary should ever be changed.

Mrs. Tate: The hon. Member did most certainly say that it would be most unfortunate if one county sprawled into another. He definitely gave the impression that he wished to maintain the

county boundaries as they are at present. To hear that in an age when every day we are told that we must learn to think in an international way—

Captain Cobb: Who wants to?

Mrs. Tate: Every day we are being told that nations must give up their narrow interests and learn to consider the interests of other nations, that Allies must be able to sink their individual interests in order to forward the common good. If we are not willing that even one county should give up an inch of soil to another county, that does not fill me with very great hope that we shall be able to appreciate the needs of another nation. But then perhaps the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth does not wish to think of anything on a larger scale than the individual needs of an individual county or nation. After all, this is not going to wreck England; it will not wreck local government. All that is asked in this Clause is that there should be a boundary commission set up and, if the Government are not in favour of that, it is not beyond their powers to devise some other means whereby the same aim will be achieved. The hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury said how splendid it was when we used to have Standing Committees, on which all these questions could be threshed out. What happens in a Standing Committee? Every Member naturally is there to forward his own interests—

Sir D. Gunston: Surely the hon. Lady has forgotten that these matters are held before Private Bill Committees, and not Standing Committees.

Mrs. Tate: I am sorry. I withdraw my statement and apologise. As I said, however, if the Government do not like the wording of this Clause—and the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) said that he was not in the least wedded to it—at least the Government understand the spirit of it, and unless the Government can promise us something better I, myself, shall wholeheartedly support it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove): I hope the Minister of Health is listening to all this. We are told that it is a good idea that this should all be put off until a great comprehensive Measure can be brought in. I think the chances of that great comprehensive Measure have not been greatly advanced by the trial


run of it we have had this afternoon. If we do not get this Clause, we shall get nothing. I beg the Committee to be realist in this matter. How long will it be before (a) a great Measure is framed; (b) a great Measure is introduced, and (c) a great Measure is carried? If we have to deal not only with the difficulties over boundaries which we have been considering this afternoon in the case of Plymouth, Hull, Coventry and Bristol, but have to add to those the difficulties of the boundaries of Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham and Cardiff, shall we get there any more quickly? I think the arithmetic seems to be a little faulty.
I support this Clause for the very reason that was brought forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest). We are dealing here with an Emergency Measure. I do not think it is a bad thing that England should grow up in a patch-work fashion; it is the way in which England has always grown up. I do not think it is a bad thing that the experiment should be tried out in certain blitzed cities. I think it is reasonable.
I felt great uneasiness when the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) came forward and said he wanted a great comprehensive scheme to apply all over England—and it would have to apply over Scotland and, no doubt, Wales, if such a thing could possibly apply in that country in a neat fashion. We have to consider the possibility of natural growth. Here is an opportunity for an experiment in natural growth. I am not in favour of great cities. I do not think great cities are necessarily desirable. I think when Cobbett spoke of London as the Great Wen, he was using a phrase which is very applicable to great cities in many parts of the country. Here, however, we are dealing with an event which, though not an act of God, might certainly be described as an act of the King's enemies. Here are exceptional circumstances. It is not every day we shall have seven cities burned in England. Suppose somebody had said after the Great Fire of London, "We cannot go ahead because it is a very awkward precedent. We are going to set up a precedent"—

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Molson: That is precisely what did happen, and that is precisely why the re-

planning did not take place which was planned by Wren.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but I was pointing out to my hon. Friends that the thing to do is to go for the novel plan on the understanding that this is an exceptional case. I may have phrased it badly, but what I meant was that in the case of an emergency it is reasonable and right to treat it in an exceptional fashion. Here are seven burnt cities. Surely they are exceptional circumstances. Let us hope it is not an event which will happen every 10 or 15 years. If that were so, then it would be a precedent for something worse than a Bill of this kind. But we are told we must wait for a great Measure. I was looking at the Memorandum to the Bill. It is suggested that the amount involved, will be of the order of £575,000,000. Even in these days £575,000,000 is a very considerable sum. I notice that the total amount payable out of the Exchequer free will amount to something like £50,000,000. I sympathise greatly with the Memorandum from Plympton, in which it is feared that the octopus of the city roundabout will grab their rateable areas. But here is a sum of £575,000,000 to be raised by public loans and £50,000,000 as a free gift from the rest of the country. After all, that does bring the rest of the country in to be sure that this is being utilised to the best possible advantage. So I suggest that, first of all, this is itself a great Measure; secondly, it is a Measure dealing with a great emergency—the blitzing of seven cities in England is a great emergency—thirdly, it is an opportunity for allowing an experiment under conditions which will not prejudice the conditions of the rest of the country, and it is a very reasonable occasion on which such an experiment might take place.
I do not like the wording of the Clause; I fear that it might lead exactly to the arguments advanced by other hon. Members that it should be a precedent—people might suppose that this was the way in which to proceed universally. I do not think that universal reference to a boundary commission is the way. I suggest it might be done by scheduling the cities concerned. I see no reason against saying, "This shall apply only to the cities enumerated in the Schedule, say seven blitzed cities," making clear that it was an emergency which we did not expect


to be repeated. It would not pass the wit of man to decide upon and schedule those cities, such as Hull, Bristol, Plymouth, Coventry, etc., and it would preserve the responsibility of Parliament. But to pass this Bill without such a Clause would, in my opinion, be a mistake. This Clause should be limited narrowly, it should be treated as an ad hoc experiment. But I think that on so great an occasion, to wash our hands of it altogether, and more particularly, to wash our hands of it on the excuse that we will postpone the whole of this until some comprehensive Measure is framed and passed in which all the difficulties are brought together, would really be to leave the question too late. Now is the time for action. If we do not act now, then let us admit that we have let this great opportunity go.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicated at the outset very briefly and without entering into the minutiae of all the pros and cons which might be urged on a subject which, as our Debate has shown, is well suited to produce very eloquent and interesting speeches, our attitude on this matter. Nobody seems entirely satisfied with the words of the Clause. Hon. Members have expressed their disagreement with it, from the slight matrimonial disagreement of one hon. Member to the addition of various Schedules. We can generally get over verbal disagreements if they exist, but I wish to say why I find it impossible to advise the Committee to accept this Clause. One reason is apparent from this Debate itself. I am unable to report, as a result of what I have heard this afternoon, that there is any unanimity in favour of the proposal. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) must remember, from his own experience as Minister of Health, how very difficult these local government questions are, and how they need to be handled with a good deal of care if we are not to do more damage than good.
It is said that this is not a local government matter; but, obviously, a proposal which has as its very aim and object the alteration of boundaries of authorities is a local government matter. We cannot absorb a rural district into a municipality without profoundly affect-

ing the boundaries of the rural district, its status, its importance as a local authority and its financial standing. We ought to give this important matter a good deal more consideration. That there is a case for improvement and changes in the machinery for dealing with boundaries and status I freely admit, but I think most of the Committee will agree when I say, let that be done after full consideration and with the good will of the authorities involved. It is possible, after all the pros and cons have been discussed in a spirit of conciliation, for the mutual concessions to be made which are necessary if a coherent scheme is to be worked, with good will and without rancour. I think that, at this late stage, to spring into a Town and Country Planning Bill a Clause which would profoundly affect this potential controversy would not make it easier to arrive at that solution, on broad and permanent lines, which would be much more desirable. I fear that it would inject into what is always a subject open to controversy a lot of ill-feeling, which we can well dispense with.
Looking at it as a planning matter, I have always said—and hon. Members can bear me out on this—that it is only by accident that the boundaries of a local authority, fixed for its administrative convenience, can ever coincide with the ideal planning boundary. The planning boundary should be considered as a whole, as the whole district, which has within it common features of economics and geography. That may include several administrative units of local government—it must do—and so we have proceeded by the formation of joint committees, which for the past year or 18 months have shown marked cordiality among their constituent members and great advances in planning. But many of these joint planning committees consist of a unit, where some big municipal or county borough is in the centre and around it many rural and urban district councils and county authorities, all co-operating in a joint plan for the proper planning of the land within the area which would be used to receive the surplus population of a great town. I fear that if this Clause were to be adopted without further consideration, and if any rural district council co-operating in a joint plan which agreed that its own area should be selected as an overspill from the great city, got into its mind the idea that, by so hospit-


ably receiving what was coming from the city, it might be in danger of setting in train a series of events which might lead to its ultimate extinction as an authority, I should not get that degree of co-operation which is essential.
Take the position of that noble city which has been mentioned so often, Plymouth. Its regional plan consists, very properly, not of an extension or creeping outwards of its black borders, but of an ordered and calculated disposition of its surplus population, some located in centres of present population which could be enlarged, if need be many miles—10 miles —away from Plymouth, with the intervening country preserved as a green belt and dedicated to agricultural use. Is the municipal area of Plymouth to extend over the whole of that green belt of agricultural land? What size of a municipal unit will there be in those circumstances? These are problems which I do not say are fatal, but which have to be carefully considered before we can accept this Clause. The link whereby it is sought with great eloquence and persistence, to join this Clause with planning considerations, is the golden link of rateable value. The argument, in brief, is that if, as a result of the plan, population is to be exported into the surrounding rural area, there is a loss of rateable value, which makes it impossible for the local authority which is planning to face up to the charge. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) pressed that point with great vigour, and seemed to consider that we could not plan really unless we extended the boundaries, and ultimately raked in all the rateable values. I think that underlying that contention there is a profound fallacy, if I may say so with great respect. It does not follow that to lose population from an urban centre means losing rateable value in proportion to that lost population.

Mr. Wilmot: The City of London, for example.

Mr. Morrison: The City of London, for example. But Plymouth has been talked about, and let us stick to this case, because it has been very largely in our minds and we are all sympathetic to it, if it can be done. The proposal is that they are going to lose, as a result of their plan, 40,000 people outside, and then they are to reconstruct the city of Plymouth on a grander and nobler basis.

Can anyone tell me, as one who knows Plymouth, that much of the housing of Plymouth which has been destroyed, and will be replaced, was a net gain in rateable income to the authority, or at all, an income which paid for the services which it entailed? I should think not. Whereas, in future, I can see a new Plymouth arising, on a fine scale, with its streets beautifully laid out; with the derelict houses, which are such a drain and no source of income, swept away; with broad streets, corner sites, and every modern convenience of a great city; and yet preserving some of its traditional charm and its old features. I think that the rateable value will be very much higher. There is no connection at all, in the case of a replanning, between loss of population and loss of income. The feature of this monetary discussion is that it is thought that by exporting population into the county you are going to do that most wicked thing, give the county some rateable value. But the county has to provide the services. These considerations occurred to me as Members were speaking. For me to accept the Clause will be impossible. It would entail a great deal of disturbance and trouble in a Bill already cluttered with controversies quite enough.
6.15 p.m.
I should be prepared, if the case of the money were so overwhelming, to do something about it, but the more I have heard the case developed the more I think it needs a great deal of examination. On the credit side of the planning authority there is this new feature introduced by the Bill. There is going to be given real property in the area of bomb damage from the State, which shoulders the burden of the non-remunerative part of their charges for a period which may extend for 15 years, and they will have that real property in their possession for ever. Is not that a powerful stimulus to the whole financial stability? Is the loss of 40,000 persons from Plymouth going for a moment to weigh in the balance against such a permanent asset on the right side of their finances? I should hope not. I should not like my hon. Friends to think that I will not accept the new Clause, because I should not like to assist them. I will only ask them to consider the latter part of my argument on the financial side and see whether they cannot get out of


this mood that, because you cannot extend your boundaries you cannot plan, because you may lose some rateable value, or fear that you may, even though on examination it turns out that you will not.
May I remind the Committee how we stand? The attention of the Government has been directed to this matter for some time. The Minister of Health, asked whether he was in a position to define the attitude of the Government in the matter of local government, said the Government did not consider that a case had been made out for any disruption of the existing structure of local government or abandonment of the main feature of the county borough system in favour of some form of regional government:
The Government are satisfied that within the general framework of the county and county borough system there is need and scope for improvements, and in particular for amending the machinery of the Local Government Act, 1933, relating to adjustments of status, boundaries and areas. Before putting detailed proposals before Parliament I propose to take advantage of the experience and knowledge of the local Government associations and for that purpose to open discussions with these bodies as soon as may be. My intention would be, in the light of these discussions, to lay before Parliament a general outline of the Government's proposals before submitting actual legislative Measures." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 1579.]
I understand that those discussions have taken place and, while they have not committed their associations, still less their constituent councils, my right hon. Friend tells me he found a high degree of unanimity on the part of a number of people of experience of local government carrying very considerable weight. He tells me that a short White Paper will be laid before Parliament and it is the definite intention of the Government to introduce legislation on this matter at the earliest opportunity next Session. This is not a matter that you can rush. You want a good solid system with which the House will agree. We do not want Members suddenly called together and find county Members disagreeing violently from the towns. Let us get a basis of ordered progress. My right hon. Friend has dwelt on that need and I should not find it possible, by accepting the Amendment, to do anything which would prejudice the discussion of these valuable and important matters.

Mr. Molson: I think the Committee will have listened to my right hon. Friend's reply with feelings of profound disappointment. He has introduced a Bill to deal with an emergency and to enable a number of heavily blitzed towns to be replanned, reconstructed and rebuilt. And when these seven heavily blitzed towns ask their representatives to bring a Clause before the Committee and say that in their considered opinion it will not be possible for them to carry out the intention of the Bill unless a Clause of this kind is incorporated in it, surely the Minister should not confine himself to criticisms of the proposals which have been put forward but should rather seek to satisfy the Committee that the Bill will be workable even if the Clause is not incorporated. Nothing that fell upon him indicated to my mind that he had really considered whether it was possible for these towns to be rebuilt if nothing were done to assist them. I was not able to follow the line of my right hon. Friend's reasoning about the assistance that was being given to these authorities if they built outside their own area. He said they received assistance from the Treasury and they would then be the owners of the housing which they would have put outside their own boundaries. But this re-housing of working class population requires a subsidy from the local authority as well as from the Treasury. I cannot, therefore, see how it can be argued that the financial position of these blitzed towns is going to be facilitated. They are obliged to provide alternative accommodation and are going to lose the benefit of the rateable value.

Earl Winterton: Will my hon. Friend devote himself to this argument? I am informed by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) that 250,000 people have been moved by the London County Council outside their area. Does not that to some extent affect his argument?

Mr. Molson: On the contrary. I understand that there are cases where it is said that the moving of population results in a burden upon the neighbouring county council instead of a benefit. In that case why should there be all this bitter opposition to the Clause and this unwillingness to consider the matter on its merits? We are not asking that the matter shall be prejudged. We are willing for it to be dealt with in accordance with


the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1933. What has been proposed is that a boundary commission should be set up in which the county borough and the county council may both make their representations. The position would be different if the Minister had indicated that he was not prepared to accept exactly this procedure and had held out some prospect of looking into the matter; or if he had said that he felt a case had been made out and that he was prepared to enter into special discussions with the towns which are pressing for these Clauses; or if he had said he did not believe a Clause of this kind was necessary but that he was willing to hold an inquiry into it.
What is the position as things are? Plymouth has already had experience of this matter on two occasions. On the first occasion, when the boundaries were extended, the area that was included was rural. The court of inquiry which was set up under the legislation of that time held that Plymouth was taking over an area which was so deficient in services that it was taking over a liability. Plymouth was then entitled to receive a payment from the county. On the second occasion, Plymouth did not take action so soon. The surplus population of Plymouth had got outside the boundary, and it was only after the houses had been built, after the burgesses of Plymouth had gone out into the county area, that the boundaries of Plymouth were extended. When the inquiry was held it was laid down that Plymouth must pay about £500,000 in compensation in order to be able to re-embrace inside Plymouth those Plymouth burgesses who had recently moved out. We should be more satisfied if we could have some assurance from the Government that this problem was recognised by them, if they would say that, if an extension takes place at some time in the future, it may relate back to the time when this Bill was passed. Then the position would be reasonably satisfactory from our point of view. My right hon. Friend is here introducing a Bill, the purpose of which is to facilitate the rebuilding and replanning of these towns, and he has himself paid tribute to the scope and imagination of the Plymouth plan. If, when the Minister of Health introduces his new legislation and carries it through the House, if, as the result of this great comprehensive

examination of the problems of local government throughout the length and breadth of the country—

Mr. G. Hutchinson: I did not understand the Minister of Health to say that there was to be a comprehensive inquiry into all forms of local government, but only an inquiry into boundaries, functions and status. The general structure of local government is not calling for reform, as I understand it.

Mr. Molson: No doubt that is so, but I should regard it as reasonably comprehensive if the status, boundaries and functions of local government were inquired into. I do not see that much can be excluded. Under the present law, if an expansion of a town takes place before the boundaries are extended, then when extension takes place, the county borough has to pay compensation to the county council which has recently received the population from the borough. Here we are debating an emergency Bill involving the expenditure of £570,000,000 to enable these towns to rebuild themselves on more spacious lines and, therefore, on a far greater scale than ever before. The population from these towns is to be decanted outside into the areas of neighbouring local government authorities. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not in every case."]Even if it is not in every case, we ought to have some provision that the effect of the Bill will not be to impoverish the towns which we want to have rebuilt. I hope it is not too late to be reassured by the Government that, if they are not willing to accept the new Clause, they will be prepared to hold even an informal inquiry into what the likely financial consequences of rebuilding will be to these towns, and that they will be prepared to consider making some proposals which will enable this Bill to be put effectively into operation.

6.30 p.m.

Mrs. Beatrice Wright: I wish to welcome the speech which the Minister has made particularly on behalf of the area I represent, for it is very closely affected by this new Clause. I want to bring before the Committee a point which, although mentioned, has not been sufficiently stressed. There is a real question of principle before the Committee. Are we to become an urban or rural-minded people in this country in the future?


Great encouragement would be given to people to live in towns by the carrying of this new Clause. I fully realise the problems confronting those who are concerned with towns that have been lamentably blitzed, such as Plymouth, but I feel strongly that we are in danger of seeing our countryside put into wild confusion in their solution. I do not want to raise the point at issue in connection with any particular town, but I am bound to do so in support of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), who has addressed the Committee so ably from the Cornish point of view. I am reminded of what Hitler said when he looked on to the Ukraine, that there were large open spaces before him which could be made great use of.
Without wishing to emulate the parish viewpoint, I feel that the Committee does not realise that there is almost a racial point at stake between Devon and Cornwall, and it would almost require a plebiscite to put it right. I can speak with great feeling on this subject as I am anything but a native of Cornwall, and it has taken me 14 years even to begin to understand the controversies of a local nature and for the people to understand me. I feel that the Committee can hardly understand how deeply the Cornish feel when God has provided thorn with a wide barrier between them and Devon in the form of the Tamar River, over which there is only a single line railway bridge and no other means of communication between the two counties. To over-ride this barrier at this stage would be to transcend the powers of what is realistically possible, convenient and right.
The Cornish feel strongly that it was not put to them that these Clauses were coming up to-day in the House of Commons and that they have had no chance of discussing them locally. We have all had correspondence from the Cornish County Council pointing out, as the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth has said, that they are ready and willing to co-operate in a joint planning scheme and to do everything possible to assist Plymouth. As the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth has said, we are not so difficult to deal with and we ought to be able to get over these problems without having a boundary commission. Surely

we can get over these difficulties without removing people from a rural area into a city precinct.
I have noticed in this discussion that many Members have suggested that a city will have to go on providing amenities, and that in one particular area, where Plymouth took in a rural strip of country, they found the amenities to be in a deplorable condition. I would like to remind the Committee that the reason why rural amenities are not particularly good is because we are poor, in the counties. If we removed three of our most populous areas and make them part of Plymouth, it will be removing one of our main sources of income. Time and time again people have said in our Debates that we must give the country child every advantage which the city child has; under the proposed new Clause we should be removing from the county the possibility of providing those amenities in order to encourage the town or city to enlarge itself over a wide area.
I cannot help feeling that this problem ought not to be worked out in the realm of this Bill at all, and that a solution ought to be found which will not be bound up with the problem of income from rates. It should be based on co-operation and on the future which is really envisaged in the Bill, the making of our country not into a string of cities from one end to the other, but into a well-planned, co-ordinated mixture of rural and urban areas. I wish to support the Government's attitude and to thank the Minister, on behalf of the county a portion of which I represent, for the attitude which he has so justly adopted.

Viscountess Astor: We have had an interesting Debate, but I am afraid a rather disappointing one. I realise the truth of what the hon. Lady has just said about local and national prejudice. I have lived in England for 37 years, but I am still a Virginian. Nothing in the world would ever make me anything but a Virginian. I know about the Cornish feeling. I have in Plymouth a remarkable old Cornish woman who is 92 years of age. She has a very brilliant brain, one of the most brilliant that I have ever met. She was very ill some time ago, and I went to see her. I spoke to her daughter, who is over 64, and I said: "You must get someone to look after your mother and help her." The daughter replied: "We can't get any-


body here. We're strangers here. We come from Cornwall." "How long ago?" I asked her, and she replied: "Sixty-four years." I know what local prejudices are and no one knows it more than I do.
Surely we want to try to take prejudice out of planning. We ought to think of something bigger than what the local prejudices are. Plympton, for instance; we have all heard complaints about Plympton. We asked Plympton to co-operate in the planning of Plymouth, and what did Plympton say? They said "No." They did not want to. We told them about the devastated area where we have a chance to rebuild under one of the world's best planners, and we asked them to come in. What was their answer? They said they did not want to; their charter was 20 years older than Plymouth's and they were going to have the borough surveyor.

Major Studholme: The Noble Lady talks a lot about local prejudices; may I remind her that it is often wise to play very carefully, and to be very considerate with them?

Viscountess Astor: I quite agree, but there is a war on.

Mr. George Griffiths: There is one on here to-day.

Viscountess Astor: We cannot afford, in these blitzed areas, to listen to local prejudices. The Minister of Town and Country Planning knows all about it. He knows Plymouth's plan, and most of the Government do. They say that the proposed new Clause has to be considered. What is the Government's record on re-planning? Remember the Uthwatt, Barlow and Scott Reports. We should never have had this replanning Bill at all if it had not been for the six or seven blitzed cities who brought pressure to bear upon the Government to replan. What are those cities asking? They are simply asking that the Government should set up a boundary commission to see what is best for the towns and best for the country. Some hon. Members have said that they do not want to see the towns spreading out into the counties, and that is exactly Plymouth's attitude. In Plymouth's plan there is no reckless sprawl. We want to preserve what is best in the county and what is best in the town.
The Minister said that this was a surprise; I am not surprised that that is his point of view, but I am surprised that this Committee should listen to very narrow local prejudices. I was rather amused yesterday when I read a speech by the Secretary of State for War. He said that when the war is over if nations understood how completely they are dependent upon each other we should have made progress towards peace. He went on to say:
In terms of communications, means of transport and moral weapons, Europe is to-day no larger than the France of the Middle Ages.
Those remarks apply exactly to replanning. The Cornish people and the county people talk as though we were living in the Victorian age, but that is past. Truro can talk to Moscow to-day more easily than it could have talked to Plymouth 50 years ago. The Government also are living in the past. They are afraid to give a lead. They have to be pushed. The Minister of Health has spoken of what can be done in the next three or six months, but we know it will take him years to do it. He is new to his job, but I did not know that he was so innocent.

Mr. G. Griffiths: He is not as innocent as the Noble Lady thinks.

Viscountess Astor: He is very innocent if he thinks he can get rid of all these prejudices in so short a time. I would like to ask hon. Members who have not had their towns blitzed whether they have lived in a blitzed town. Do they know what the conditions are? I do not believe they do. Have they even taken the trouble to see the Plymouth plan? Do they know what they are voting about? I beg them to remember that this issue will not affect only the six or seven cities but the whole of England. If we get our seven cities replanned rightly, taking in what is best for the county and best for the urban authorities, we may be helping on the better England of the future.
If the Minister of Town and Country Planning could have made up his mind some time ago, he would not have got into all the trouble which he has got into since. The trouble with Ministers often is that they do not make up their minds. They go here, there and everywhere; but now the time has come. Have we had a definite promise from the Minister of Health that he will bring in his White Paper next Session? I want to know whether that is a definite promise.


I ask the Minister of Health, who is on the Front Bench.

6.45 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): The assurance that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning gave was, I think, in these terms: that a White Paper on this subject is at present in course of being drafted, following on most agreeably unanimous discussions with the associations of local authorities. I cannot give a specific answer as to when a White Paper on that situation will, in fact, be published, but it is my earnest hope and belief that it will be published this side of Christmas, and that legislation will follow in the next Session.

Viscountess Astor: That is a very good promise and we accept it with pleasure. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend gave it, but I really am a little worried about the results. The Minister must have a way with him such as we certainly have not got in Plymouth or anywhere else. We cannot get Saltash, which is absolutely built up of Plymouth people. We have had it from the Cornish Members that they do not really want to co-operate, they are frightened to co-operate. They do not want to lose anything that is Cornish; we do not want to lose anything that is Devon. But the time has come when we have to work together. I should not feel so keenly about this plan if it was not for the appalling conditions in the blitzed cities. Another thing that has worried me all through this Bill is that people who do not want to get on are making every kind of excuse. It is perfectly dreadful when we think of what we are asking the young people of this country to do. We did not ask the young men at Arnhem whether they came from Devon, Cornwall or Leicester, nor did we ask them what class they came from. They went out and fought together for a better England. A better England canonly be built up by getting rid of our local prejudices, and sometimes I really feel that they are more difficult to get rid of than national prejudices.
I know it is hard, but I do beg hon. Members to think, to visit the blitzed areas, to look at the Plymouth plan, and try to do as the Prime Minister said the other day, when he came down and made a

plea. I do not know Why he came, I do not know who was after the Government, but I ask this Committee to understand the position. Believe me, the people outside this Committee do not understand. They simply cannot understand. They want a new sort of world, and a new kind of world will go over all sorts of boundaries—counties, further even than England. This world will never be built up if we as Members of Parliament stand up for the vested interests of national, county and town prejudices. I suppose, having got such a pledge, we shall not have to press this Clause. But I ask the Committee to watch the Government well and study this plan, and see whether it is a plan for the future of the young people, because it really protects social amenities. It stops that sprawling-over of which hon. Members have spoken. It will not only rehouse, but it will make it possible for people in crowded areas to get out, and it will be a very good thing for agriculture. Above all, unless the National Government have a national plan and the courage to carry it through, I am sorry for them when the time comes when they have to go to the country and tell the country what they have done at home. They can well tell them what they have done abroad; they have done marvellously. I wish they had had as much courage on the home front as on the foreign front. I ask my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, Do not let us say that all the prejudices are on the other side of the Committee. We in our way are just as prejudiced as they are.

Mr. H. Strauss: I think the Committee is ready to come to a conclusion. I can add very little to what has been said by my right hon. Friend, but I should like to say one word to my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), in addition to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in his intervention. The Minister of Health gave what was, in the opinion of the whole Committee, a very businesslike and forthright statement. I think the hon. Member for The High Peak, as a result of an intervention from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), thought that functions were being discussed in these discussions now proceeding with local authorities. What the answer of my right hon. Friend to a Parliamentary Question mentioned was


status, boundaries and areas, but not functions. 
There is one point the Committee should bear in mind. A great deal is being said about pursuing rateable value outside the original area, but it is not realised that very often the rateable value is not going to a contiguous or an adjacent area at all but to a far more distant area. That problem can scarcely be dealt with by dealing with boundaries. The final point which the Member for The High Peak mentioned was the question of financial review. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health was here throughout the discussions, and of course will consider all the financial points that have been made, but the hon. Member for The High Peak will not forget that in Clause 8 of the Bill we provide for periodic financial reviews. With that assurance I hope my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw his proposed new Clause.

Mr. Storey: The assurance which my right hon. Friend has given us has gone a very long way to meeting the worst fears, from the point of view which we have put forward to-clay. In the hope that the phrase "at the earliest opportunity next Session" will not be too elastic, and so as to expedite the passage of the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Land used for fairs, circuses, etc.)

(1) No action shall be taken under Section five of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943, in respect of—

(a) the use of land by a person who is a travelling showman or the proprietor of a travelling circus, stall or store, for the purpose of a fair ground, camping ground or parking ground between the first day of October in any one year and the first day of April in the next succeeding year; or
(b) the erection of temporary and moveable structures for the purpose of holding an amusement fair or circus;

unless there are exceptional local circumstances which make it expedient that the use of certain land in the manner and for the purposes aforesaid should be prohibited or restricted and it is proposed to include provisions in the scheme to this effect.
(2) No provision shall be inserted in a scheme made under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, prohibiting or restricting

(a) the use of land by a person who is a travelling showman or the proprietor of a travelling circus, stall or store, for the purpose of a fairground, camping ground or park-

ing ground, between the first day of October in any one year and the first day of April in the next succeeding year; or
(b) the erection of temporary and moveable structures for the purpose of holding an amusement fair or circus;

unless there are exceptional local circumstances which make it expedient that the use of certain land in the manner and for the purposes aforesaid should be prohibited or restricted.—[Mr. H. Beaumont.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am exceedingly hopeful that this Clause will meet with the approval of the Minister, and that he will feel able to accept it. I also hope it will meet with the approval of all Members of the Committee, in so much as it is a human problem which is affected here, and furthermore affects a great profession with a great tradition who have contributed greatly to our laughter, gaiety, humour and enjoyment. I cannot imagine there is any hon. Member or right hon. Member here who has not fond memories of or who cannot think back to when, in a certain escapade, he visited the circus. The "big top," the circus, the circus riders and all the joyous things attached to the fair present a great attraction to the young people. The Clause I am moving affects the showmen of this country. Showmen have a great place in the life of the nation. They have made a great contribution to national gaiety. They have added a quota to our national happiness. Quite unintentionally, and I think accidentally, the Bill as it now stands will seriously affect the operations of showmen in this country and offer a menace to the continuance of their life. It would be a great disaster if we were to lose the tremendous source of enjoyment which is provided for us by travelling showmen. I feel sure that the framers of the Bill have no intention of inflicting any hardships upon them, or preventing showmen from carrying on their occupation. The term "development" in this Bill includes:
Any building operations or rebuilding operations, and any use of the land or any building thereon for a purpose which is different from the purpose for which the land or building was last being used.
The term "building" thereby implies structures or erections, and as a result of these definitions whenever a showman


uses land for the purpose of a fair ground, or a camping ground or parking ground which has not been previously used for that purpose, or erects stalls, booths and other fairground structures or appliances for the purpose of holding a fair he is carrying out developments within the meaning of the Bill. By Section 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1942, interim development authorities are given power to prohibit development which is carried out without interim development permission after giving 28 days' notice of their intention to do so. The fact that 28 days' notice must be given enables showmen who do not intend to stop in any one place for more than 28 days to escape any action under Section 5. The real difficulty is this: It affects showmen during the months in which they lay up their apparatus. The laying up period is operative from October to April and during that time it is the common practice for owners of roundabouts and suchlike apparatus to go to certain places to park their appliances or machinery, having obtained permission to do so and by paying rental for the land. It is a common custom to try to have these parking places adjacent to towns so that they can secure facilities they require for repairing machinery and for other matters and in addition be able to provide from time to time some amusement by opening booths and similar attractions. This Bill could prevent showmen from occupying ground for the period between October and April, and I feel sure that no one here desires that they should be handicapped in that way.
7.0 p.m.
Showmen's business is entirely different from any other businesses. They park their apparatus in a certain place in a town one year, and when they go back to that place the next year they find that the piece of ground they used before is not available. The showman has great difficulty at the present time, but he will have almost unsurmountable obstacles to overcome if the Clause I am moving is not accepted. I submit that this Clause will meet this position and the special difficulties of travelling showmen. Subsection (1) (a) is designed to prevent action from being taken against travelling showmen laying up for the winter months and keeping some kind of fair running while they are doing so. Sub-section (2) (a)

is designed to prevent showmen from being affected by the usual zoning provisions inserted in planning schemes. It is recognised, however, there there may be exceptional circumstances which might make it desirable or expedient to prohibit or restrict land from being used by showmen in the manner described, so a safeguard has been inserted for planning authorities. Paragraphs (b) of the two Sub-sections have been inserted merely to prevent the erection of fair ground apparatus from itself being a cause for action under Section 5 of the scheme. The Clause will afford protection for travelling showmen who make only temporary use—and I emphasise the word "temporary"—of land. It will not enable the stationary fun fair proprietor to establish a permanent fair ground or amusement centre without applying for permission. This Clause is to give to showmen, for a period of five or six months, the right to park their vehicles and their caravans in certain places.
It is interesting to note that special privileges to showmen have already been granted in other Acts. In the Public Health Act, 1936, with regard to the control of moveable dwellings, it states in Section 269:
Nothing in this Section applies … to a moveable dwelling which belongs to a person who is the proprietor of a travelling circus, roundabout, amusement fair, stall or store (not being a pedlar, hawker or costermonger) and which is regularly used by him in the course of travelling for the purpose of his business.".
In the Ministry of Health Model Clauses, for use in connection with special schemes, Clause 34 says:
Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this part of the scheme shall be construed as prohibiting or restricting or enabling a council to prohibit or restrict.… the use of land for a fair or show by a travelling roundabout proprietor, a travelling showman or a stallholder.
Thus it will be seen that Governments in the past have recognised the peculiar and special difficulties of travelling showmen, and have made provision for them which, up to the present, has worked well. There is the economic factor. Not only does the travelling show add to the gaiety of our life, but it has contributed handsomely to the war effort. During the past four or five years a large number of young men from these shows have joined the Forces and many of their women and older men are either making munitions or driving lorries and bulldozers, with the result that


only some 25 per cent. of the apparatus of these show people is being used to-day. The other 75 per cent. is in store in certain places, and it would be a tremendous hardship if these people were compelled to move every 28 days. May I also remind the Committee that travelling showmen have contributed very largely to the "Holidays at Home" campaigns which have been organised in the country? They have contributed handsomely towards the rates in many districts as a result of the payments they have made for the right to occupy certain places in our towns and cities.
Therefore, I submit that, providing that no harm is done, the Minister should accept this Clause. I do not see how the acceptance of the Clause will, in any way, materially affect the working of the Measures, and I do not see that it can, in any way, hamper either the local authorities or the Ministry itself, and, because of that, I commend it most heartily to the Committee. It might be said that this Clause may hamper the operation of the Measure. I cannot see that it will do, but, supposing it does, I assert that the social and enjoyable benefits conferred by the travelling showmen of this country are so great that, if I might use a phrase connected with showmen, if the Minister accepts it, what he loses on the swings he will gain on the roundabouts.

Mr. Denville: I do not think more can be said in favour of this new Clause. It might however be difficult, with the Clause in its present form, to incorporate it in the Bill, and so I suggest to the Minister that he might give every facility in his power, either in this Bill or in some future instruction, to protect these people and safeguard the interests of showmen. The showman, as we know him to-day, is not the showman of yesterday. The days of rogues and vagabonds with swings, roundabouts and conjurors, wandering round the country, "busking" from one village to another, have gone, but we must not forget that we have had some eminent men, such as Sir Henry Irving, "busking" from one end of the country to the other. Since earlier days, the showmen have advanced tremendously, and, to-day, instead of seeing rogues and vagabonds, we find men of education, whose sons and daughters are going to the best schools in the country, and who are res-

pected in many towns as great citizens. We have had no less a person than an hon. Member of this House—Mr. Pat Collins, formerly Member for Walsall.
We are dealing to-day with respectable members of the community, and it is in their interests that I ask that this Clause should be accepted. It might interest the Committee to know that they are to-day doing very great work. Instead of towns and villages, as they did a few years ago, desiring that the showmen should not pitch their tents in that district, the day has arrived when towns and villages are begging the showmen to bring their fairs, roundabouts and travelling circuses. Indeed, some of our cities look upon the fair ground as a means of raising a large amount of money for their funds. For instance, in fairs of three or four days' duration, such sums as these were raised: Oldham, £1,022; Newcastle, £5,400; Hull, just over £4,000; Nottingham (in two and a half days) just under £5,000. The Committee can understand why the cities are very anxious that the showmen should come round, and why we are very anxious that they are given the right to carry on their livelihood.
The travelling circus or theatre, after many months travelling round the country doing good work, has to go back and lie up for the winter, and the showmen must find some place where they can lie up. You cannot say to them "Get on the roads and travel around in winter," because it is impossible. So they lie up, and in some cases, a town or a village is very glad to say "Here is a spare piece of land, and if you like to open your fair ground on Saturday night, it will take people off our streets." It may be that chief constables have even asked showmen to open their concerns for this purpose. If nothing else can be done to-day, I would ask the Minister, at any rate, to give the matter every consideration and do his best to see that something is done to protect these people.

Mr. Silkin: I hope the Minister will be very careful in considering this new Clause. I should like to say to the two hon. Members who have just spoken that I do not yield to them, or anyone else, in my admiration for the showman, professional or otherwise. I think, however, we should consider what this Clause is doing. After all, good town planning involves control over the use of land, and


what my hon. Friends are asking is that, in the case of the showmen, there should be no control over the use of the land but that the showmen could be free to use any land for six months of the year without any control, not only for the storage of their equipment but also for the purpose of giving shows. I do not know whether either of my hon. Friends would like to live next door to one of these shows, but, if the Clause were accepted, they might find themselves in that unfortunate position, and if, next door to them, somebody came along and put up a show for six months in the year, there would be no powers of control whatever. A show might come next door to a school, which would be equally unfortunate if performances were given during schooltime, or it might be even next door to a church. I submit to the Committee that there must be some control.

Mr. H. Beaumont: Might I point out to my hon. Friend that in line 10, of the proposed new Clause, it is stated:
Unless there are exceptional local circumstances which make it expedient that the use of certain land … should be prohibited or restricted.

Mr. Silkin: I do not know what that means. What are "exceptional local circumstances?" If there really are such circumstances, why cannot they make application? It does not follow that, because an application is made, it will necessarily be refused. If there are no grounds for refusing an application for the use of land for a fair, then the application will be granted. My hon. Friend must assume that the town-planning committee will act in a responsible manner and will grant an application if it is right that it should be granted, but, in those exceptional cases where it would be a nuisance, then the application would be refused. I think that is the proper way of doing it, and I see no reason why showmen should be placed above the law and any different position from any other land user. I was the chairman of the town planning committee of the London County Council, and I assure my hon. Friends that if they came along in London and asked for the use of land, the committee would act in a reasonable manner, and I believe that would be true of any other authority.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) says this Clause would leave showmen free to use land for six months. That is scarcely the fact, because the land they utilise for winter storage is, very often, out-of-the-way ground, and usually derelict and waste land. This Clause does not ask for any permanent possession of the land, but only for permission for the winter to enable the showmen to lay up their equipment until the summer tour commences. If they were forced to move during the winter months it would create considerable hardship. Are we to understand that only if exceptional circumstances arose and the local authority required the land they would have to go? As long as they understood that, I do not think there would be any trouble at all, and I hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause.

Earl Winterton: It is desirable that someone should speak in support of the Clause besides those who speak with knowledge and interest. The hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Denville) made a very erudite speech on the general question of circuses with which I agree. We all view with great sympathy the speech of the mover of the Motion, and I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will do something to meet the case of these people. It is true, as the hon. Member for Central Newcastle said, that there is a very great demand for travelling circuses at the present time. We want to be careful when dealing with a Bill of this kind and attempting to make everything bright and beautiful in the New Jerusalem which is so obviously coming upon us, and which has been so much expedited in the last five days, not to exclude from this bright, new, beautiful city we are about to erect, these picturesque figures of the past, who existed in Queen Elizabeth's time, before there was any town planning. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), but I hope that the Minister will be able to give to those who have very properly brought forward the matter some assurance that it is not going to be overlooked.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am delighted at once to respond to the very sympathetic speeches which have been made and not least that made by my Noble Friend. Although what I am about to say is not


very relevant, I do not think that anyone in this Committee enjoys the travelling show or circus more than I do, and it is a very ancient, honourable and excellent institution. I am going to invite my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Beaumont) to withdraw the Clause, which really would not work as it stands and is, in fact, unnecessary. In so far as schemes are operative, it is possible to secure adequate provision in them to deal with the problems we have been considering, and such provision has been made in the past in operative schemes. The more important part, perhaps, is the first Sub-section which deals with interim development control. There, I am bound to say, I have a good deal of sympathy with the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). The question raised by the exception at the end of the proposed Sub-section seems to be the very point that the interim development authority would have to consider. Until the Act of last year the showmen did not need to apply for interim development consent because there was no way of enforcing interim development control.
I do not think that any of the hon. Members who spoke in support of the New Clause gave any examples where an interim development authority had, in fact, acted unreasonably in refusing an application from bodies of this sort. I see no reason for assuming that if application were made to them, they would act in that way. But assuming for the moment that there were local authorities who did not give sufficient consideration to this type of application, the Minister has powers in the Statute of last year under which he could himself act in dealing with those applications. For these reasons, while expressing every sympathy with the desire that prompted the setting down of the Clause, and saying it is certainly not the intention of my Ministry to put a stop to these excellent institutions, I am bound to say that I see no immediate case for this Amendment, and it would, indeed, be quite unsuitable for this Bill.
Various hon. Members talked as if this Bill did something which threatened showmen. In fact, however, the only Acts concerned are the Acts of 1932 and 1943. I can assure hon. Members and my Noble Friend that as regards completed schemes we are satisfied that we

can deal with the matter satisfactorily under the existing law. With regard to interim development control we are not at all convinced that any change in the law is required because we are not aware of any case where the need has been proved, and if cases were brought forward, existing powers would enable us to deal with them. Having given that assurance, in examining this case and other cases of the temporary user of land, we will consider in future legislation whether any amendment of the law is required. With that assurance perhaps I may ask my hon. Friend if he thinks fit to withdraw the Amendment.

Earl Winterton: Have there been any complaints by any of these showmen under the two Acts to which reference has been made? Have there been any appeals to the Ministry?

Mr. Strauss: As far as I am aware, "No," but they have been in touch with my Ministry on the subject of this Clause, and I have every reason to think that they will be satisfied with the assurance that I have given.

Earl Winterton: It should not be assumed that if there is any attempt to prevent these people from carrying on their legitimate business, it will only be opposed by those who, quite properly, have knowledge of the subject in this House. We regard it as a very important matter.

Mr. H. Beaumont: I wish to say that in thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for his statement and the sympathetic way in which he has dealt with the Clause two objects have been achieved—the matter has been ventilated in the House of Commons, which I hope will have a good effect, and there is the assurance that has been given us that if anything did so happen to affect the interest and operations of the showman the Minister would consider it as a very important matter. Perhaps of equal importance is the irrelevant statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary that he has a private vice, and that is to enjoy a travelling circus. Local authorities would be rather reticent to oppose circuses and fairs if they thought that their scheme of prohibiting circuses might come before the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.)

(1) The power of a local authority under Section seventeen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, to prohibit the demolition of any building of special architectural or historic interest shall include power to make an order directing that without the consent of the authority the building shall not in any way prohibited by the order, be altered or extended.
(2) In accordance with the preceding Subsection the power of a local authority to vary an order under the said Section seventeen shall include power as respects any order made under that Section (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) by a subsequent order thereunder to vary the order by adding thereto such a direction as is mentioned in the preceding Sub-section; and Sub-section (3) of the said Section seventeen (which provides for an appeal to the Minister in certain cases) shall have effect as if the reference to the demolition of a building included a reference to the alteration and to the extension thereof.
(3) If any owner of a building executes, or causes or permits to be executed any work for the purpose demolishing, altering or extending the building in contravention of an order in force under the said Section seventeen, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and the court by whom he is convicted may in addition order him to pay such sums as the court think just for the purpose of restoring the building, so far as may be, to its former state.
(4) Where an order under the said Section seventeen has come into operation as respects any building, the authority by whom the order was made may at any time serve notice of the order on any person not being an owner of the building and, where such notice has been served, the provisions of the last preceding Subsection shall apply in relation to the person on whom it was served as if he were an owner of the building.
(5) A local authority having power to make an order under the said Section seventeen as respects any building—

(a) may, with the consent of the Minister, acquire by agreement the building and any land comprising or contiguous or adjacent to it which appears to the authority and the Minister to be required for maintaining it or the amenities thereof, or for affording access thereto, or for the proper control or management thereof;
(b) if an order under the said Section seventeen is in force as respects the building and it appears to the authority and the Minister that it is not being properly maintained, may be authorised to purchase the building and any such land as aforesaid compulsorily, by means of an order made by the authority and submitted to the Minister and confirmed by him in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of the First Schedule to this Act.

(6) A local authority shall have power, as respects any land acquired by them under this Section, to repair, maintain and insure any buildings or works on the land and generally

to deal therewith in a proper course of management, and may with the consent of the Minister dispose of any land so acquired in any manner expedient for, or consistent with, securing the object for which the land was acquired.
which apears to the authority and the Minister
Sub-sections (8) to (10) of Section fifteen of this Act shall apply in relation to the disposal of land under this Section as they apply in relation to the disposal of land under that Section.—[Major Studholme.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Major Studholme: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) and other hon. Members, seeks to extend Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. That Section gives local authorities the power to forbid the demolition of any building of historical or architectural interest. In practice, however, the Section proved ineffective, and less than 30 buildings have, I understand, actually received protection under it. The new Clause will remove some of the difficulties which hamper the operation of the present law. May I, briefly, summarise this new Clause? Sub-section (1) gives a local authority power to prohibit any alteration or extension unless made with its approval. Notwithstanding an order forbidding demolition, the beauty of a building might be destroyed by ill-advised alterations or additions. Subsection (2) empowers a local authority to add to an Order forbidding demolition a further direction forbidding alterations and extensions. The owner is given the same right of appeal against such a direction that he enjoys when he is forbidden to demolish. Sub-section (3) provides a penalty for infringement but it does not preclude the old remedy of an injunction. The court is also given power to order payment of the cost of restoration. Subsection (4) enables a local authority to serve a notice on a person other than the owner. Thus, a builder may be stopped from proceeding with a demolition or an alteration. Sub-section (5) empowers a local authority to acquire by agreement the building and any land needed for maintenance or amenities, access or management. It also gives powers of compulsory purchase where a building is not being properly maintained. Subsection (6) gives a local authority power to maintain, repair and manage any such


buildings acquired. It also gives the authority power of disposal. In order to preserve a building, the authority could thus transfer the building to the National Trust or to one of the amenity societies. These bodies, I would like to point out, on a very small income and, with no aid from the State, have done splendid work for the protection of beautiful and historic buildings. Knowing the Parliamentary Secretary's sympathy with the purpose of this Clause, I hope that we are pushing at an open door, and that he will accept it.

Mr. Wilmot: I think all of us will agree with the proposal in this new Clause, and I rise only to draw attention to what I think is a weakness in it that has been overlooked. It would be possible, even under the extended powers of the 1932 Act here set down, for an owner to take action to despoil or demolish one of these buildings which it is sought to preserve, between the time when the matter is considered and the time when the local authority obtains the order. I think it would be wise for the Minister, between now and the next stage, to consider dealing with that question. Perhaps there might be something in the nature of a requirement to owners to give the authority reasonable notice of intention to demolish or alter a building on these lists or, alternatively, the authority might be empowered to give notice to an owner that it proposes to apply for an Order and that, during the tenure of that notice, no alteration could be made. If the Minister would look at that point between now and Report stage, I am sure the mover of this very valuable Clause would be the first to agree with it.
Will the new Clause enable the authority to protect not only a particular building from demolition or alteration, but the ruin of that building by the erection of unsuitable surroundings, or the demolition of part of a street? The replacement of one side of Bedford Row, for example, would completely ruin the street. We have seen some of this in London. The awful Babylonian monstrosity in Mornington Crescent did not demolish Mornington Crescent, but it ruined it so much that we almost wish it were dead, and I think it is just as important to protect what is left to us of historic beauty from ruin by unsuitable neighbours, as it is to prevent untimely

death by demolition. I know that in the Minister—and I say so despite an ancient controversy about Waterloo Bridge which we had when I first came to this House—we have one who has these causes very close to his heart, and with the Parliamentary Secretary I have the honour to share the membership of societies devoted to these causes, and so I am sure they will do their best to comply.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I hope the Minister will be able to accept this new Clause, because it is entirely in line with what he himself wants and Parliament and the country generally want. It is important that local authorities should be encouraged and supported in every way in looking after these old buildings because they do not always appreciate their value. There have been instances where, in a particular locality, they have disregarded something which to them may be an everyday affair, but to people from a distance is of great historic importance. Any enactment which goes to enhance the importance of matters of this kind will help to maintain these buildings for all time.
I am glad to see Sub-section (6) in the Clause, because that enables the local authority to pass over those buildings to bodies like the National Trust. It is important to bring in experts who have devoted the whole of their lives to studying the best way of maintaining buildings of this kind. Bodies like the National Trust have acted purely in the public interest, and they are naturally more fitted to act as caretakers, as it were, than bodies like local authorities who have had no such experience. I would like to know whether Sub-section (6) would enable the Office of Works—which has maintained some ancient buildings very well indeed—to come in and act as a manager in a suitable case. Subject to that, I think it would be a most valuable advance to have this Clause in the Bill.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: It is clear that the whole Committee is in sympathy with the objects of this new Clause, and I feel very confident that the Minister will be able to accept it. If in doing so he is able still further to strengthen it, along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) many of us who


are keenly desirous of achieving the objects of this Clause will be very glad indeed. I would, however, like to see some means for strengthening the process for cases not provided for in the Clause, where a local authority is in different and does not care about issuing an Order which a good authority would not hesitate to issue. Is there any way by which the Minister can stimulate a backward authority to do its duty in that way, or even in some cases to act in default of the authority? There have been cases in the past where local authorities have been wilfully negligent of noble historic monuments, and we want to prevent that in future. I should like to support what was said by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) with regard to Sub-section (6) which is very valuable, and the safeguard it contains that the authority and the Minister must be satisfied that it is consistent with securing the object for which the land is acquired would prevent it from being used for disposal in any other than the right way. Not only the National Trust and the Office of Works, but local antiquarian societies or similar societies might be suitable trustees. The Yorkshire Philosophical Society is the owner of St. Mary's Abbey, of the priceless Roman remains in the gardens around, and of the multangular tower; and it has shown itself a very enlightened custodian. No doubt there will be other cases where local societies, run not for private profit but in the public interest, might be suitable custodians.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am very glad to be able to inform the Committee that the Government accept this new Clause. It only remains for me to answer one or two of the points that have been made. First, I should like to make it quite clear that the acceptance of this Clause in no way affects the undertaking that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) that on the Report stage we should introduce still a further new Clause. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot), as to possible notice by the owners, is more associated, I think, with the conception of lists than with this Clause. I am inclined to think that, if his suggestion is possible at all, it is more likely to be possible in connection with the

new Clause that we contemplate than with this one. But I shall certainly have the point examined. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) I would point out that this Clause does not contain any power to compel the local authority to act. There is no such power in the Clause which it amends, and I must be frank and say that this Clause does not give that power. But the hon. Member will not be unaware of the body of legislation under which the Minister of Works can act.

Mr. Mander: But the Ministry of Works is one of the bodies to whom it could be transferred?

Mr. Strauss: I think that such a building could be transferred to the Ministry of Works, either under this Clause or under their own legislation. There is one other point, which is not unimportant. I am convinced that both this Clause and the new Clause which we shall be introducing will be quite insufficient by themselves to preserve many of the things that we wish to preserve. It is vitally important that the local authorities should take every care of local amenities, and should preserve such things as Queen Anne's Gate and Bedford Square for all time. Whatever we provide in the Bill will not he sufficient unless the local authorities take the necessary steps.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on the acceptance of this Clause. I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities {Mr. Harvey) about powers being put in the hands of the Minister to force local authorities to take greater care in preserving these old places. The county of Warwickshire, for instance, abounds in places of great interest and great beauty, and some of the local authorities are quite indifferent to the obligation which rests upon them. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will regard this subject as of great importance, and that the Minister of Works will, in the near future, have sufficient powers to compel local authorities to discharge what is the obvious duty of safeguarding places of great national interest.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I am very sorry, at this hour, to be raising


a voice in the wilderness, but I do not like this Clause as it is drawn. I am very much in sympathy with its objects: the expressed intention is very good; but I should not like to see Sub-section (5), as I read it, incorporated in an Act of Parliament. Nothing raises more warmth in this Committee than the plea that somebody is being turned out of his home. One hears and reads of terrible cases of hardship caused by people having their homes taken away from them. That is exactly what will happen under this Clause. So far as I can understand it, if, as nowadays may easily occur, a person has as his home one of these scheduled buildings, and, for any of a wide variety of reasons, is unable to maintain that home in the way the local authority consider it should be maintained, they have power to take that home away from him. We know that at present there is an order in force that one may not spend more than £10 a year on a house. How can anyone maintain property of this description on £10 a year? That is an extreme case; but if, in ordinary cases, a person is financially embarrassed for a time, and is not maintaining his home as the local authority consider he should, if they take it over and put it right they then have the power of reselling it. I agree with the remark that was made that it would be a very good thing that they should be able to sell it to the National Trust. But they can sell it to anyone who, in their opinion, will see that it is maintained in such a way as to secure the objects for which the land was acquired. I sincerely hope that the vast majority of houseowners and landowners throughout the country would fulfil that condition. But would any hon. Member care to see his home acquired in such circumstances, and sold over his head, under this Bill? I think that safeguards are required. While I am certainly in favour of the object of the Clause, I think there is a loophole by which people might be put into very serious difficulties.

Mr. Wilmot: Will my hon. Friend, in drafting the new Clause which he promised, take care to insert safeguards against spoliation by neighbourhood development?

Sir John Mellor: I take exception to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P.

Hannon) that the local authorities in Warwickshire were careless of the antiquities and works of art in their areas. Representing a good many of those local authorities, I must say that my experience has been that they have taken great care of those many antiquities that are worth preserving.

7.45 P. m

Mr. H. Strauss: I want to reassure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks), who was the only one to criticise the Clause, on one point. I cannot conceive, as a lawyer or, indeed, as an administrator, that any Minister would take the view that property was not being properly maintained, within the meaning of this Sub-section, so as to make a compulsory acquisition appropriate, if the only reason were the impossibility of getting building materials and so forth. I will have the words examined but that is certainly not the intention. On the other hand, this power of public acquisition in the last resort is necessary, because otherwise a building of really historic importance might fall into decay with no remedy whatever. As regards the immediate surroundings of the building, that is provided for in Sub-section (5, a). As regards the preservation of streets, crescents and squares, I will have that borne in mind in drafting the new Clause. In my opinion, in the long run these things must depend on the Ministry and the local authority having the right ideas of what is the essential duty of town planning and in what the beauty of the town consists and you cannot secure them by mere drafting.

Sir P. Hannon: When I spoke of historic buildings, my criticism of local authorities applied generally and not particularly to Warwickshire.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHRDULE.—(Expedited procedure for authorising compulsory purchase under Sections 2 to 4 and Section 9.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 53, line 7, leave out from "authority," to end of line 9, and insert:
authorising a compulsory purchase under this Act.

Sir J. Mellor: When discussing the earlier Clauses, at your suggestion, Major Milner, the Committee decided to postpone discussion of the question of a public local inquiry until the Schedules were reached. Is it your view that any discussion on that point should take place upon the existing Schedules or upon the new Schedule to be moved in due course?

Sir P. Hannon: May I also ask your guidance, Major Milner, on the new Clause in my name which you held to be out of Order? At what joint in the discussion should I be in Order in calling attention to the matter?

The Chairman: I am not quite clear what the hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) referred to, but it will, of course, be in Order on the question dealing with the new Schedule.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It seems to me, subject to year better opinion, Major Milner, that the new Schedule for dealing with objections would be a good place to discuss the matter.

The Chairman: That would appear to be so. The point of the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) will arise on the First Schedule. I think it is a matter of procedure.

The Solicitor-General: This Amendment is one of a series relating to the publication and serving of notices on owners. Originally, the First Schedule related to Clauses 2 to 4, and 9, and the second to Clause 10. As the result of consideration and representations, these Schedules are to be married into one, and the result will provide for the service of notices on all owners, only by direction of the Minister in connection with contracts by which comparatively few things are affected.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 53, line 16, leave out "As soon as may be."
In line 17, leave out "by Gazette and local advertisement."
In line 23, at end, insert:
(2) In the case of any such order as to which the Minister so directs, the authority shall serve on every owner of any land to which the order relates a notice to the like effect as that of the notice required by the preceding sub-paragraph to be published.

Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not have effect in the case of an order which relates only to land as to which an order under Section one of this Act is in force.
(3) The notice required as aforesaid to be published shall be published—

(a) in the case of an order which relates only to land as to which an order under Section one of this Act is in force, and in any other case in which service on owners is not effected, by Gazette and local advertisement; or
(b) in a case in which service as aforesaid is effected, in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land to which the order relates is situated.

(4) Publication as aforesaid, and service as aforesaid if any, shall be effected, in the case of an order which relates only to land as to which an order under Section one of this Act is in force, as soon as may be after the order has been submitted, and, in any other case, as soon as may be after the order has been submitted and any direction of the Minister as to service on owners has been given or he has notified the authority that he does not propose to give any such direction.
In line 24, leave out from beginning to "either," in line 33, and insert:
3. The provisions of the Schedule (Procedure for dealing with objections) to this Act shall have effect in relation to the order if any objection thereto is duly made.
4. Subject to the provisions of the said Schedule in a case in which those provisions have effect, the Minister may confirm the order as submitted.
In line 43, leave out from "on," to end of paragraph 5, and insert:

"(a) any owner or occupier of any of the land thereby designated who, at any time after the publication of the notice of the order as submitted, has sent to the authority a request in writing to serve him with the notice required by this paragraph specifying an address for service;
(b) any person who has duly made an objection to the order and at the time of making it or thereafter has sent to the authority such a statement as aforesaid; and
(c) such other persons, if any, as the Minister may specify, whether individually or as members of a class of persons."

In page 54, line 14, leave out from "Minister," to "shall," in line 15, and insert:
authorising a compulsory purchase under this Act, other than an order giving an authorisation in accordance with Section eleven of this Act.
In line 22, after "Schedule," insert:
and, in any case in which he thinks it requisite so to do, serve on every owner of any of the land to which the draft relates."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]


Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."

Sir P. Hannon: We are face to face with every variety of property the acquisition of which is contemplated in Clauses 2 and 3 and 9 and 10. We feel very strongly that it is imperative that there should be some co-ordination of the method of compulsory acquisition of land. We have in Birmingham for a long time been engaged upon an examination of town-planning schemes which have commended themselves to every Minister who has been brought into contact with them. I am not quite certain that the Minister himself has seen the designs that he has produced for the planning of the City, but the Minister of Health was very much impressed with the admirable work that has been accomplished. We have not only to deal with land and buildings which have been injured and practically destroyed in the raids, but also with a part of the City which has been badly laid out and is in a very congested state, and to which the new reconstruction schemes will be applied. We have also to deal with the social development of the City, which will be a natural consequence in the course of reconstruction after the war. All these things impose upon the Estates Committee of the City Council and the City administration a very heavy burden, and it is imperative that there should be as little inconvenience as possible in view of the other responsibilities attaching to the management of the City after the war.
I am not certain whether the Minister can assure us that under this Schedule or the proposed new Schedule he can, as far as possible, ease the burdens which will rest upon the Corporation of Birmingham in dealing with planning schemes when this Bill becomes an Act. It is important that we should have an assurance on that point. We have in Birmingham one of the leading city engineers whose work in dealing with problems of this nature is recognised throughout the country as highly competent, and his work in connection with town planning generally and the planning of our city has been universally recognised. The work has been uncommonly well done, and the town clerk and his efficient assistants have been engaged for a long time in the preparation of plans. We therefore feel, and I am sure it would be

the wish of the Minister, that as little burden as possible should be added to the work which the officials of the City have to face in post-war reconstruction. Speaking in general terms, what I have said applies to other local authorities throughout the country.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he desires. The whole purpose of the Schedule, with these Amendments, is to provide a complete and lasting process in favour of what was formally a cumbrous and expensive one. The powers have been related to the purposes for which the powers are to be exercised, and my hon. Friend can rest assured that this Schedule marks a great advance in seeing that the corporation he represents will be empowered to undertake their great task.
Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE. — (Procedure for authorising compulsory purchase under Section 10.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

The Solicitor-General: The old differing procedures are being married in the new procedure, and therefore we wish to delete this Schedule.

Sir J. Mellor: Notwithstanding what was agreed about discussing the question of public local inquiries on the new Schedule, I do not think I ought to let the Second Schedule be deleted without a protest and asking my hon. and learned Friend a question. With the deletion of this Schedule will go the right to have a public local inquiry in cases covered by Clause 10, which gives power to purchase land for certain planning purposes under the normal procedure. Why, in cases where the normal procedure is to be applied, have the Government decided to eliminate the right to have a public local inquiry and to substitute some discretionary procedure?

The Solicitor-General: I am willing to go into any of the detailed points that my hon. Friend has in mind, but the general reason is that it seemed to us much better to have a simple general procedure, that the inquiry should be at


the discretion of the Minister and that the right should exist in no class of cases other than those I have mentioned. We have done our best to harmonise the two procedures, and we thought it would be for the general simplification and better working of the Bill to keep them in the form of one procedure, as I have suggested.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely the only point of that argument is that it makes for tidiness in administration. Clause 10 does not deal with matters of emergency. It deals with planning purchases under normal arrangements and there is no hurry in those cases. Why should not we have a right of public local inquiry in those cases? I am sure my hon. and learned Friend has not convinced the Committee, and we should have some argument advanced as to why the procedure under Clause 10 should be lumped together with the procedure under other Clauses.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I do not want to go into the matter on this Schedule and repeat the arguments on the new Schedule. My hon. Friend will be entitled to raise the point on the new Schedule, which applies to all the Clauses under which land can be acquired. We can deal with it more conveniently then.
Question, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill," put, and negatived.

8.0 p.m.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Procedure for authorising compulsory purchase of statutory undertakers' land.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 56, line 39, at end, insert:
(3) An objection shall not be deemed for the purposes of the said Sub-section (4) or of this Schedule to be duly made unless—

(a) it is made within the time and in the manner specified in the notice in that behalf, and
(b) the objection comprises, or there is submitted to the Minister therewith, a statement in writing of the grounds thereof."

This is one of the series of Amendments on the subject of procedure for dealing with objections. The Third Schedule relates to procedure for authorising compulsory purchase of statutory undertakers' land, and it is desired to keep the special provisions that have been made with regard to their land because

of the special position of statutory undertakers which I have more than once mentioned.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Assessment of compensation to statutory undertakers.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 58, line 1, leave out sub-paragraphs (b) and (c).
This Amendment and the rather formidable list of other Amendments in my name, relate to the basis of compensation to be paid to statutory undertakers in respect of the acquisition of land under Clause 11, and of the extinguishment of their rights under Clauses 21 and 29. The whole question of compensation is one which the Solicitor-General has undertaken to discuss with the local authorities, and in view of that and on his giving similiar undertaking to the one he gave on previous Clauses, I shall be happy to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I am happy to extend the undertaking which I have given to my hon. Friend to cover this Schedule. I think that we can say that we both look forward with moderately modified pleasure and great expectancy to the meeting which will discuss this matter.

Mr. Silkin: In view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and I do not propose to move the other Amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 58, line 32, at end, insert "and."

In line 33, at beginning, insert "where any such adjustment is made."

In line 34, leave out "any such," and insert "the."

In line 35, leave out "as aforesaid."

In line 36, at end, insert, "together with."

In line 39, leave out "any such," and insert "the."

In line 41, at end, insert:
or
(c) where no such adjustment is made, such amount as appears reasonable com-


pensation for any estimated decrease in net receipts from the carrying on of the undertaking which is directly attributable to the purchase or other proceeding giving rise to compensation.

In line 41, at end, insert:
and
(d) in the case of compensation in respect of the imposition of a requirement under Section 21 of this Act to remove any apparatus, any expense reasonably incurred by the person carrying on the undertaking in complying with the requirements reduced by the value after removal of the apparatus removed.

In line 49, after "used," insert:
in so far as the value of the property has not been taken into account under head (d) of the preceding sub-paragraph.

In page 59, line 1, leave out "(c)," and insert "(b)."

[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Modifications of Lands Clauses Acts and Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, for purposes of Part 1.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 60, line 43, leave out from beginning to "Section," in line 44.
The Schedule sets out the modifications of the Lands Clauses Act, and the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, which are to apply to purchases of land. Under paragraph 1 (2) of the Schedule, Section 123 (2, b) of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act may be excepted, in the case of compulsory purchase of land. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that the same exceptions to Section 123 shall apply to purchases of land by agreement. The omission of Section 123 presents certain advantages to local authorities, but it is difficult to understand why the Clause should be omitted in the case of compulsory purchases and not omitted in the case of purchases of land for exactly the same purpose by agreement. If the Amendment were agreed to, it would provide that Section 123 might be excepted, both for compulsory purchases and purchases by agreement. If I have not made myself clear to my right hon. Friend, I hope that he will be prepared to look into the matter.

The Solicitor-General: I shall be very pleased to look into this point. My hon. Friend has indicated that it is one of some little difficulty and I shall look into it with pleasure before the next stage.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In page 63, line 45, at end, add:
10. The power conferred by Sub-section of Section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, to withdraw a notice to treat shall not be exercisable in the case of a notice to treat, which is deemed to have been served by virtue of Section twenty-seven of this Act."—[The Solicitor-General.]
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Expedited procedure for completion applicable to compulsory purchase orders under Sections 2 to 4 and Section 9).

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 64, line 24, leave out from beginning to the first "a", in line 28, and insert:
Notwithstanding anything in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, no notice to treat shall be deemed to be served on any person in respect of an interest being either—
(a).
The purpose of the paragraph is to enable purchasing authorities to choose whether they will compulsorily acquire an interest which will shortly expire, or whether they will wait until after the determination of the interest. Subparagraph (3) of paragraph 1 will provide that, in the case of those interests, there will be no automatic notice to treat. It is a technical point, but that is the effect of it.
Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 64, line 30, leave out "under."

In line 31, leave out from "for," to "still," in line 32, and insert:
an interest greater than a minor tenancy but having, at the date when apart from this provision notice to treat would be deemed by virtue of the said sub-paragraph (1) to be served on the owner of the tenancy."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 64, line 33, after "period" insert "longer than a year."
The Amendment deals with a small technical point under Section 121 of the Lands Clauses Act, connected with what is a tenancy of one year.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 64, line 40, leave out from beginning, to end of line 41.

In page 65, line 11, leave out "sub-paragraph," and insert "paragraph."

In line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (2).—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 65, line 48, leave out "two months", and insert "one month."
It is assumed in this Schedule that a compulsory purchase order has been made and that it is essential that the expedited procedure should apply. By that time, there will have probably been two public notices in the Press and presumably a public inquiry, and the owner has, therefore, had ample notice, on the application for a compulsory purchase order, that it is desired that the procedure should be expedited and should apply in those circumstances. The Amendment is designed to enable the local authority to get possession in one month instead of two months. I submit that in these cases, where the Minister has already been satisfied as to the expedited procedure, one month is quite sufficient. May I refer to the next Government Amendment, which goes together with the one I am moving and in which the Minister seeks power to extend or to reduce the period? I should not expect him to increase the time, nor do I think it reasonable that the period one month should be reduced. If my hon. Friend accepts the Amendment the next one would automatically fall.

The Solicitor-General: Here, for the first time for quite a considerable time, there is a difference of approach between my hon. Friend and myself. He prefers the flat period of one month and thinks it would work in all cases. We prefer a maximum of two months, with power to shorten in cases where that would appear obviously to be better. We believe that we shall achieve greater flexibility. We

have agreed that in most cases one month will cover it.

Mr. Silkin: Would the Solicitor-General agree to leave out the power to extend the period, as I would be quite satisfied if two months really remained the maximum, with power with the Minister to reduce the period in proper cases? This Sub-section enables the Minister to extend the period as well.

8.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I do not mean to shirk the point. I hope I did not unintentionally convey a false position. We feel that there might be certain circumstances where someone with a small shop, or something of that kind, has particular difficulties in clearing out, in which there ought to be an extension. I hope my hon. Friend will consider this point, and consider our point of view. I think that is the first time I have used that argument. We have considered it very carefully. We feel there might be cases of hardship and we do not want these to suffer. My hon. Friend may accept it with certainty that the last thing we desire is to give any encouragement to delay in the matter.

Mr. Silkin: If my hon. and learned Friend says that in the majority of cases one month would be adequate, why does he not accept this Amendment, seeing that he has the power in the next Sub-section to increase the period of one month where necessary? It would be much simpler to say one month with power to increase where necessary. If he will accept this, we shall all be happy.

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to consider that point. I came down fully convinced of the justice of my own case, but I am always ready to look into any representations that are made. Perhaps my hon. Friend will leave it like that. I have explained our general attitude—we desire flexibility —but he has put forward quite a reasonable point, and obviously we ought to consider it.

Mr. Silkin: In view of what the Solicitor-General has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.


Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: In page 67 line 12, leave out from beginning to "shall," in line 13.
In line 47, after "thereof," insert:
and (except where he retains possession of the document as mortgagee or as trustee or otherwise in a fiduciary capacity) an undertaking for safe custody thereof.
In line 48, after "acknowledgement," insert "and undertaking."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Application of the rule set out in Section 45 in certain special cases.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule be the Seventh Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. W. S. Morrison: This Schedule is consequential on Clause 45, which has been omitted from the Bill, and I ask that it should be deleted.
Question put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — NEW SCHEDULE.—(Procedure for dealing with objections.)

1.—(1) The following provisions of this Schedule shall have effect where an objection is duly made to—

(a) an application for an order under Section one of this Act;
(b) a proposal to make an order under Section nineteen thereof;
(c) the making of an order under Section twenty-two or twenty-three thereof;
(d) an order authorising a compulsory purchase submitted by a local planning or highway authority, or prepared in draft by a Minister, in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act;

and is not withdrawn.
(2) An objection shall not be deemed for the purposes of any of the said enactments or of this Schedule to be duly made unless—

(a) it is made within the time and in the manner specified in the notice required by the relevant enactment referred to in the preceding sub-paragraph, and
(b) the objection comprises, or there is submitted to the Minister therewith, a statement in writing of the grounds thereof.

(3) In this Schedule the expression "the Minister" means the Minister or Ministers having jurisdiction to make or confirm the order in question.
2. Unless the Minister decides apart from the objection not to make or confirm the order, or decides to make a modification agreed to by the person making the objection as meeting the objection, the Minister Shall, be-

fore deciding whether to make or confirm the order, or what modification if any ought to be made, consider the grounds of the objection as set out in the statement, and may, if he thinks fit, require the person making the objection to submit within a specified period a further statement in writing as to any of the matters to which the objection relates.
3. In so far as the Minister is satisfied, after considering the grounds of the objection as set out in the original statement and any such further statement—

(a) that the objection relates to a matter which can be dealt with by an arbitrator by whom compensation is to be assessed, or
(b) in the case of an objection to an order authorising a compulsory purchase of land as to which an order under Section one of this Act is in force, that the objection is made on the ground that the purchase is unnecessary or inexpedient,

the Minister may treat the objection as irrelevant for the purpose of his deciding as aforesaid.
4. If after considering the grounds of the objection as set out in the original statement and any such further statement, the Minister is satisfied that he is sufficiently informed, for the purpose of his deciding as aforesaid, as to the matters to which the objection relates, or if where a further statement has been required it is not submitted within the specified period, the Minister may decide as aforesaid without further investigation as to those matters.
5. Subject as mentioned in the two last preceding paragraphs, the Minister shall, before deciding as aforesaid, afford to the person making the objection an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed for the purpose by the Minister, and if he avails himself thereof the Minister shall afford an opportunity of appearing and being heard on the same occasion to the authority or other person (if any) making the application or representation or submitting the order in question and to any other persons to whom it appears to the Minister to be expedient to afford it.
6. Notwithstanding anything in paragraphs 2 to 5 of this Schedule, if it appears to the Minister that the matters to which the objection relates are such as to require investigation by public local inquiry before he decides as aforesaid, he shall cause such an inquiry to be held, and where he determines to cause such an inquiry to be held any of the requirements of those paragraphs to which effect has not been given at the time when he so determines shall be dispensed with.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
This Schedule represents the results of our reflection upon discussions we had in the House, and in other places with the associations of local authorities on one aspect of our


procedure, namely, objections to orders and public inquiries or other methods of hearing. I took the line and I think I speak for all the local authorities concerned—they agree with it—that no man should be deprived of land without the opportunity of being heard, so that his case can be considered by some impartial person.
The only method known to the law, until this Schedule, was what is generally known as the public inquiry. Although they are useful things in most cases, such an inquiry has still clustered around it a lot of dilatory features which are taken advantage of, not in order to air the case and arrive at a conclusion as to where justice lies, but by people who, I regret to say, like to advertise themselves and use the inquiry for purposes for which it was not intended. The position we took up was: Supposing we can arrive at procedure which will ensure for every case a hearing, or some method of having the matter decided or reported upon by an independent person. I promised to go as far as I could to remove from public inquiry procedure those dilatory features, which I felt were not justified in order to secure adequate protection for the individual. That was agreed upon by both sides.
In the new method of dealing with objections, the right to hold a public inquiry in any case still rests with the Minister and in any issue where public interests are involved, or where a large number of objections have to be heard, a public inquiry would still be the appropriate and the best method of having the whole matter threshed out before an independent person. But there are cases where an order is objected to by someone who feels that he wants his case heard, but does not feel that a public inquiry is the appropriate way of setting about it. There may be a point at issue between him and a small number of persons with identical interests where the public interest would be better served by bringing the parties together, not excluding the Press or friends, by trying to substitute for the formal, longwinded process of the public inquiry the atmosphere of the conference table presided over by an impartial person selected by me. We feel that these narrowly defined issues can be better dealt with in that way, and accommodation reached

between the parties, than if the matter is put to a public inquiry where it can be indefinitely prolonged and there is a great deal of waste of time and expense.
In order that the Minister should be able to judge what is appropriate to meet an objection, we introduce a new feature here, with which I am sure the Committee will not quarrel. It is that the objector, if his claim is to be heard, must say in writing why he objects. Under the law as it stands it is sufficient to say "I object," and then, when the public inquiry comes along, for the objector to put his case without the authority knowing beforehand what are the grounds of the objection. Consequently, the whole inquiry is swollen by rivulets of all sorts of extraneous matters, and it is desirable that the objector should be obliged to state in writing the grounds of his objection. That will enable the Minister to decide what is the most appropriate form of dealing fairly with the objection. There are only two cases provided for by this Schedule where the public inquiry and hearing can be dispensed with. Sometimes I find people have put in an objection to a proposed order not because they want so much to object to it but because they want to exact, through their continued pressure, a better price from the purchasing authority. The prices at which land should be obtained, and what should be paid for compensation, are essentially matters for the arbitrator, and not for the public inquiry. I was saying that if the grounds of objection submitted by the objector show clearly that he has no real objection against the body of the order, but is because he fears that he will not be adequately compensated, that is a matter for the arbitrator and there is no necessity to have two inquiries—firstly, the public inquiry and, secondly, the arbitrator dealing with exactly the same point.
8.30 p.m
The last case is a little more difficult. The Minister could exclude the holding of a public inquiry if satisfied that he is really sufficiently informed of the issue involved. It sounds a little "wiseacreish" and "know-all-ish," but I can see no other way of expressing it. One kind of case is the case where, already, the question at issue has been a matter of inquiry and the facts are all known. It sometimes occurs in cases which arise with an authority operating the powers


of Slum Clearance Acts, where the question at issue is whether the buildings are in such an insanitary condition that they should be relegated to the class compensated for only at clear site value. In these cases, if there is a dispute, the Minister of Health may have power to hold an inquiry and the matter may have been inquired into, on such questions as to the condition of the houses. If, as may well happen under this Bill, in dealing with blitzed and blighted areas, the same property is to be acquired, and the question arises what is the correct price to be paid, the man may again raise a matter previously determined, and we think that, if he has had a public hearing under another Statute, it is a proper case for dispensing with another inquiry.
The last case which comes under this sub-head is that these public inquiries are apt to be infested, from time to time, with what I may call the professional objector. He is a gentleman who turns up, no doubt with the best intentions, because he generally suffers from a monomania about some wonderful panacea which will put the world to rights in a moment, if only it was incorporated in a town and country planning scheme. Of course, he is entitled to a hearing, but whether his being heard advances the cause of knowledge at all is very difficult to say. His desire for litigation can only be satisfied in this way, so we take, under this heading, the power to deal with what, in less exalted surroundings, I would call the crank objector.
Those are the results of our attempt to combine the two essential elements, and they are both present—first, that every single individual who is being made the subject of one of these orders shall have the right to be heard before an independent person, and secondly, that the previous procedure for a public inquiry as operated for the purpose is a dilatory, time-wasting and money wasting procedure, which in many cases hampers its effectiveness and delays the execution of good will.

Sir J. Mellor: I think the Minister is trying to dismiss this matter rather too lightly. It seems to me that the provisions of this new Schedule for dealing with objections are most unsatisfactory, as compared with the provisions in the Bill as it received its Second Reading. The Bill, as it received its Second Read-

ing provided for a public local inquiry as a right—certainly under Clauses 1, 9 and 10—and I think that, at the time of the Second Reading Debate, both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary affirmed that. I am sorry to detain the Committee but I must remind hon. Members of the very strong attitude which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary took up upon this point at that time. I want to ask my right hon. and learned Friend exactly what has occurred since that time so completely to change his view. He has told us that the local authorities are unanimous in their approval of this new Schedule. That may well be, but local authorities are not everyone, and the rest of the community should have their point of view considered as far as it is possible for us to to estimate it in this Committee. On 11th July on the Second Reading Debate, my right hon. and learned Friend, referring to Clause 1, said:
Local (authority) executives dislike both the publicity and the delay.… The ordinary citizen likes to know what his rulers are about.
… He likes to be able to have his say in public before his friends and neighbours and before an independent person."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1944: Vol. 401. c. 1596.]
On the same day his Parliamentary Secretary said:
If important projects were carried into effect without public inquiry, indignation would be aroused and obstruction would be provoked, quite out of proportion to any possible saving of time. It is therefore desirable that the objections anybody might have should be aired at a public inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 1689.]
And again on the following day, presumably after he had heard the views of hon. Members of the House, during the second day's Debate, my right hon. and learned Friend said:
It is very important to the man who is overruled that he has been overruled after having had his say and then he does not feel the same bitterness as if he had been overruled by some procedure with which he does not agree."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 1849.]
That was the attitude of my right hon. and learned Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary during the Debate upon the Second Reading of the Bill and at that time there was a very extensive procedure providing for a public local inquiry as a right. My right hon. and learned Friend, at the very last moment in the Committee stage of this Bill, asks


the Committee to agree to a new Schedule which completely reverses the policy on that point.

Mr. Morrison: No.

Sir J. Mellor: That is debatable. I maintain that it completely reverses the policy on that point, which was the policy sustained by the Government on the Second Reading of the Bill. I want to know what discussions my right hon. and learned Friend had on this matter. We know that he had discussions with the local authorities and satisfied them. What discussions has he had with other people concerned with regard to the provisions of this new Schedule? I am prepared to concede to my right hon. and learned Friend that in many cases a public local inquiry may not be the best method. Where one wants to proceed with great urgency, I agree, it may give opportunities for dilatory behaviour, but while that may well apply to proceedings under Clause 1, it certainly would have no reasonable relation to procedure under Clause 10.
I do not want to repeat what I said a quarter of an hour or so back on that point because I think the Minister appreciated my point. But a sharp distinction should be drawn with regard to the degree of urgency under Clause 10 and procedure under the other Clauses, because Clause to relates to the normal procedure and I cannot see that there is sufficient need for hurry in proceeding under Clause 10 to justify the elimination of the right to a local public inquiry and the substitution of the discretionary procedure laid down in the New Schedule.
My right hon. Friend in moving the new Schedule said that everyone had the right under this new procedure to be heard by an independent person. It is rather a slender kind of right if one looks at the Schedule closely because the Minister, if he is satisfied of certain things, can treat the objection as irrelevant. Again, if he thinks he is sufficiently informed of the nature of the objection, he may decide without further investigation. Also he can decide whether he thinks it is appropriate that an objector should be heard by a person appointed by him or heard in the course of a local public inquiry. But there is no right about it, it is entirely in the discretion of the Minister

and he can do exactly as he pleases. When one compares the provisions of this new Schedule with the Bill as it received the assent of the House on Second Reading, this is a very poor business indeed from the point of the view of everyone except the Minister and the local authorities.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Even at this late hour I would like to say a few words with regard to this new Schedule, and I regret that I was not here to listen to the opening of the Debate with the Minister in regard to it. I may say, having listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) has said, I find myself in disagreement with him. I have never found, in my experience, a public inquiry serving a very useful purpose, for I have never known a case where the proposal put forward was not carried through in consequence of a public inquiry being heard. I think the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) on one occasion said his experience was the same, although recently he said that he would quote a case where public inquiry had some effect. However, I see no radical difference between the proposals in this Schedule and the content of the Bill. It seems to me there is some advantage in having in one Schedule the procedure to be followed by objectors but, radically, there is very little practical difference between allowing an objector to be heard by a person appointed by the Minister and in appointing a public inquiry to be held.
The only point on which I feel some doubt is this. These interviews with officials are held presumably for the purpose of deciding whether objections are well founded or not, and also to satisfy the objectors that they are not well founded if that be the case. I would ask the Minister to consider, if he can, whether some method can be found by which this fact-finding tribunal—as the Attorney-General referred to it earlier in the Debate on the Committee stage of this Bill—could announce its decision to the objector to satisfy him. It is very little satisfaction to an objector to come and make what he thinks to be a strong case before a little man who sits absolutely silent at the end of a table and then hears nothing more about it. Although that may relieve him to some extent by allowing him to blow off steam, I think it would be much happier if, at some stage, the


reasons why his case had been dismissed could at least be declared to him. It may be that he would go away far happier and realise that it really was in the national interest that his property should be acquired, a matter which he was quite unable to appreciate before. Would the Minister consider whether there is some way in which that could be done and, if possible, insert an Amendment to the Schedule on the Report stage to carry that into effect?

Lieut. - Colonel Thornton - Kemsley: In this informal procedure which my right hon. Friend proposes, and with which I am in wholehearted agreement, is it open to the person making the objection to be represented by an expert witness? So often an objector would like to have with him a solicitor or valuer or surveyor, and it seems desirable that he should be allowed to have such an expert witness to represent his views, if he so desires.

8.45 p.m.

Lieut - Commander Joynson - Hicks: I wish to draw the Minister's attention to one point, and to support very earnestly the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). If something on the lines my hon. Friend suggested could be provided, it would relieve a great deal of potential misunderstanding. My minute point is in connection with Sub-section (2, b), which says that
an objection shall not be deemed, for the purposes of any of the said enactments or of this Schedule, to be duly made unless … the objection comprises, or there is submitted to the Minister therewith, a statement in writing of the grounds thereof.
The object of that was fully explained by the Minister, and it is admirable; but when this matter gets to the machinery stage, I am afraid that, being told that they have to set out their grounds of objection in writing will be a terrible bar to most potential, genuine small objectors. If that phrase could be made rather less comprehensive, or less formal, it would be a comfort to the proposed objector, and would prevent it being used, perhaps unfairly, to limit the scope of the objection if, notwithstanding notice which has been put in, an inquiry is held.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor), I wish to say that I am

sorry he thought I treated the matter too lightly. I tried to explain it shortly, and, when he attempts to find a great contrast between my attitude on the Second Reading and the present result, in the form of this new Schedule, he must remember that what was then being urged in certain quarters of the House was the recommendation of the Uthwatt Committee, that the Minister should have discretion in every case to dispense with the public inquiry; and I took the line that that general discretion should not form part of this Bill, but that there should be these ameliorative and accelerative provisions, so as to rob the public inquiry of its offence as an instrument of policy, and leave these forms of inquiry, modified, though, I think, still efficacious, as a remedy to the individual. He mentioned Clause 1 orders. I think I can say without fear of being a false prophet, that in that case there will be public inquiry, because there big projects, affecting many interests, will be decided. As regards Clause 10, the same procedure is open. If there are many objections there will be a public inquiry. If there is only one man affected, it would be better, and he would like it better, if an impartial hearing were given with the local authority opposite him so that he could argue his case and a decision be arrived at by the Minister. The Minister has to arrive at the decision and not the officer who hears the inquiry, which gives me trouble about accepting the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). It is difficult for a man to make a report if he knows that it is going to be published.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will my right hon. Friend remember the procedure adopted under the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Bill?

Mr. Morrison: I do not remember it off hand but I will look into it. My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) asked whether a man could be assisted at the hearing by an expert witness or anyone else. Yes, he can. He can be assisted by counsel or a solicitor, or anyone he likes. With regard to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), the words in the Bill "a statement in writing of the grounds of his objection" are about as tenuous and free as I could make them. I do not think


they are likely to deter any objector with grounds for a statement from putting them in writing. There will be no effort to hold a man strictly to what he puts in his letter, after the manner of formal pleadings in the High Court. As long as we can get enough information to judge the weight and the nature of his objection, that is all that is required.

Sir J. Mellor: There are two points that my rt. hon. Friend has not answered, why it, is necessary to assimilate the procedure with regard to objections under Clause 10 to that of the other Clauses, as there is no urgency under Clause 10, and what steps he has taken since the Second Reading to consult persons interested other than local authorities.

Mr. Morrison: One of the criticisms about the Bill as originally produced was that the procedure was too multifarious. There were too many procedures for different purposes of acquisition, and it was in attempting to meet that that the whole objection procedure is in this Schedule. The weight that should be given to an

acquisition under Clause 10 is that in a proper case, where there is no hurry, there would be no hurry about trying to get a more expeditious procedure than was adjudged necessary in the case. As regards consultation with other persons, I consulted with my friends and other members of the Government in deciding what I should recommend as the Government policy. The discussions with local authorities to which I referred took place in pursuance of a pledge that I gave on the Second Reading.
Question put, and agreed to.

Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed [Bill 47.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Brabner.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes before Nine o'Clock.